International Aid

Baroness Whitaker: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they have plans to increase their international aid budget.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, UK development aid has doubled since 1997. It has risen from £2 billion to more than £4 billion and will increase from 0.26 per cent of gross national income in 1997 to 0.4 per cent by the end of the current spending round in 2006—the highest level since 1981. This will be higher than the EU target average for member states of 0.39 per cent. In addition, as the Chancellor announced in the Budget, the Government will not cut aid in the next spending round, but will continue to increase the resources that we provide to the world's poorest countries.

Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer, on which, indeed, I congratulate him. But does he agree that although, due to our right honourable friend the Chancellor's achievements, Britain has the strongest economy in Europe, many other countries in Europe are ahead of us in that they have either reached, or found timetables for reaching, 0.7 per cent of GNI, which was agreed 34 years ago? Will he undertake to set a timetable to reach the agreed goal in the next Parliament, as the report of the All-Party Group on Africa asks?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I gave the figures for the existing spending round and I gave an indication, which is rather unusual, of the Chancellor's intentions for the next spending round. It would be difficult to go further than that, but I point out to my noble friend that the 0.7 per cent target, even if it were pursued by everyone, would not deliver the resources for the millennium development goals that the United Nations said would be necessary and which would require, it says, £50 billion a year. The Government have set up the international finance facility to bridge the gap between pledges and the millennium development goals. That is a more realistic and helpful target than setting a timetable.

Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, following the debate last week on the DfID annual report, when the Minister's noble friend ran out of time to answer all of the questions raised, could I press the Minister on one of those unanswered questions? We note with interest that DfID is involved in a 100 million dollar loan to provide schooling for 2.4 million children in China. Will that amount grow? Perhaps the Minister could enlighten the House on the reasoning behind a loan to support education in one of the fastest growing economies in the world.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not think that the criterion for aid should be, or is, whether a country has a fast growing economy. By World Bank definitions, China, like India, for example, is a low income economy and a feature of our policy has been to give a high proportion of our aid to low income economies. That applies to China as well.

Baroness Northover: My Lords, is the Minister aware that £544 million has been pledged to the reconstruction of Iraq up to March 2006? Does the noble Lord feel that it is right that DfID should carry so much of the burden of that policy? What will he do to ensure that the poorest people in the world do not lose out as a result?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I must say, first, that Iraq is a low income economy. I know that that should not be the case—it has all the resources; gross mismanagement and bad government over many years are to blame. However, I assure the noble Baroness that the money going to Iraq is not taken from the rest of the DfID budget—90 per cent of which will go to the poorest countries by 2006.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is there any positive news about defeating corruption? One of the Government's aims has been to see that money really reaches those poor people. Has there been any real progress in that respect?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is a huge problem and is the reason why the Government, to some obloquy, did not agree with those who argued that we should be cancelling all the debts of the heavily indebted poorest countries immediately. It would not be a proper use of the money if it fuelled corruption or conflict, but we are doing much work in countries such as Sierra Leone to ensure that corruption is reduced. Money is available if corruption is reduced and if we are sure that the help will reach those people who really need it.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, as the Minister said, in his reply to my noble friend Lady Northover that the money would be taken out of DfID's budget, will he confirm that there will be no adverse impact on DfID's budget?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I understand that none of the money which goes to Iraq will be taken out of DfID programmes for other countries.

Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, my noble friend said that the International Financing Facility was a better means of increasing aid for the world than the target of 0.7 per cent. However, as he said that at 0.7 per cent there was not enough to reach the millennium development goals, will he not agree that we need both the IFF and the target of 0.7 per cent?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, my Lords, there is a failure of logic there. We are saying that in both the current and next spending rounds we will make significant increases in our overseas aid. That is the way in which we run our finances and we do not make particularly long-term commitments. Combining that with the Chancellor's initiative—the international finance facility, which was largely his idea—bridging the gap between the pledges and the millennium development goals and doing that with the aid of the international financial community, is the right way to proceed.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, the Minister acknowledged that more resources would be available for development if we could stamp out corruption. What progress has been made on the Prime Minister's initiative: the extractive industry's transparency initiative? How many countries have signed up to that?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not have that figure on the tip of my tongue. I will write to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, about it. I apologise.

EU Membership

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	On what basis they maintain that 60 per cent of the United Kingdom's trade and 3 million jobs depend on the United Kingdom's membership of the European Union.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, in 2002, some 53 per cent of the UK's trade in goods and services was with the EU. The Treasury estimates that 3 million jobs in the UK are linked, directly and indirectly, to the export of goods and services to the European Union. This figure is based on the assumption that the share of total UK employment associated with UK exports to the EU is equal to the share of total UK value added generated by UK exports to the EU.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that Answer. However, that precise sound-bite was used several times last week by the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and others when campaigning for the European elections. The obvious aim was to frighten the British people into fearing that we cannot afford to leave the European Union. Is the Minister aware that every reputable study conducted this century has found that leaving the European Union would be trade and jobs neutral for the United Kingdom; and that a new study has found that leaving would bring an economic benefit to our economy of at least £20 billion per annum? If the Government do not agree with those studies, why do they continue to refuse to sanction a cost/benefit analysis?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am delighted to see the noble Lord on his usual Bench in the House. We on this side wish him well in his continuing efforts to divide the Opposition party.
	In answer to his question, let me make it quite clear that there are advantages, well documented and easily identified, to our membership of the European Community. They are represented by the level of investment in this country and by the number of jobs dependent on the European position. The Government are prepared to enter into debate at any stage on any statistics which may be developed on the other side of the argument, but they will need to be substantiated with rigour. The government figures are, of course, rigorous.

Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, is peddling his usual line of nonsensical proposals and that if we followed it we would be committed to competing in a single market from which we were excluded from making any of the rules? The rules would apply to us and we would have to sit outside and accept them, even if we still traded. At the same time, the noble Lord would inflict enormous damage on British agriculture which currently receives support from the European Union.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. I emphasise that the single market brings significant advantages to this economy. How else can we explain the significant investment by the Japanese motor industry, for example, if we were not part of the single market? When the Opposition produce their frequent rants about so-called red tape in the United Kingdom and from Brussels, perhaps they should bear in mind that the moment we withdraw from the EC and negotiate fresh terms, the amount of red tape in Customs alone would be enormous.

Lord Marsh: My Lords, I declare an interest as European adviser to a large Japanese company. Surely this is a time when we should stop the politicking about such a serious subject. If we lost 60 per cent of our trade, that would be total disaster. Can the Minister list the three major sectors about to go bankrupt?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I cannot do that, but I can agree with the noble Lord that this is a serious debate. He will recognise that the essence of political debate in this country is about serious issues. We are not selling our people short when we engage in this debate with a degree of seriousness that the nation expects.
	If at times that looks as though a government Minister might be prone to a little point scoring on the Opposition, that is merely part and parcel of the necessary debate on this serious issue. I have no doubt that it will feature prominently in the next general election and will certainly feature in the subsequent referendum.

Lord Newby: My Lords, does the Minister agree with the director-general of the CBI, who said earlier today that leaving the EU would be a disaster for British industry as it would deny it a voice at the table at which the regulatory framework, in which it has to operate in relation to 60 per cent of its exports, is determined? If he agrees with that, can he urge on his Cabinet colleagues rather greater effort and energy in making the case which he has made so eloquently this afternoon?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I could not possibly suggest that my right honourable friends in the Cabinet could be more energetic in prosecuting the essential case before the British people. However, I agree very much with the noble Lord and the director-general of the CBI that it is clear that a substantial amount of British exports from our manufacturing industry is dependent on our participation in the single market. Should the country make the tragic mistake of following the suggestions of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, we shall risk that being put in jeopardy.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, does the Minister accept that governments must govern with consent and, given the results in the European elections, would not a little humility be in order? I share the Minister's view on the importance that he attaches to our continued membership of the Community. Can he therefore confirm that the Government will now abandon their plans to adopt the European constitution, given the clear voice expressed by the people? If we are to govern with consent, should we not react to the clear concern in the country at the continued integrationist stance in Europe when people wish to be in a Community that provides prosperity and free trade?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Lord is putting his own gloss on, and giving his own interpretation of, the events of last week. But I certainly agree that it ill behoves any of us not to be responsive to the votes expressed by the people. I emphasise to the noble Lord that, so far as concerns the proposed treaty, the Prime Minister has made it clear that, when a Labour government are re-elected at the next general election, the people will be consulted and will have the right to vote on these issues after they have been duly considered by the British Parliament.

Cross-Channel Rail Freight

Lord Berkeley: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What plans they have to encourage cross-Channel rail freight from 2005–06.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the Government's proposals for rail freight will be announced as part of the conclusions of the rail review. Current arrangements for cross-Channel freight services derive from the contract between Eurotunnel, British Railways Board and SNCF. The Government hope that the parties can agree a way for services to continue for the benefit of freight users.
	With regard to the long term, we await the new Eurotunnel management's plans for the development of freight services through the tunnel. Until those are available, no definitive proposals can be put forward by other interests.

Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for that reply. I declare an interest as chairman of the Rail Freight Group. Is my noble friend aware that, as part of these negotiations, there is a good chance that all services will stop from next April or May unless someone finds about £25 million to bridge the gap in the serious contractual situation that he has outlined? Given the Government's duty under the Transport Act 2000 to promote rail freight, will he take that into account and ensure that there is no disruption in service?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the present situation is serious but perhaps not quite as serious as the total suspension of freight through the tunnel envisaged by my noble friend. However, we are in a very difficult position. My noble friend will recognise that, in these circumstances, the Government's scope to play a role with state aid is very limited. But he will also know that we are about to announce our general proposals regarding rail services, including freight, and we shall seek to safeguard as far as possible, and, in fact, enhance, freight services through the tunnel.

Viscount Astor: My Lords, does the Minister remember that it was John Prescott, the Deputy Prime Minister, who created the Strategic Rail Authority, and Stephen Byers, the then Minister for Transport, who created Network Rail, but that the structure of the railways has just been called a "crazy bureaucracy" and an "absurd system" by Kim Howells, the current Minister for Transport? Does he agree with those statements and, if that is the case, how can anyone plan a proper rail service in the future?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the development of those two concepts relating to rail services was derived from the fact that, following the previous government's privatisation, we found rail services in chaos. The noble Viscount will recognise that we are not satisfied with the position. That is why the rail review is currently being carried out, the results of which will be announced in June or July. We intend to identify a structure for the railway system which enhances its performance and enables it to recover from the years of underinvestment by the previous administration and the chaotic system that they left behind them.

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, perhaps I may return to the Question. Freight services through the Channel Tunnel face a real crisis because of the need to conclude a new arrangement for the financing of Eurotunnel. If that has to be done by next year, we do not want to send out an uncertain message to freight forwarders. Can the Minister give some kind of assurance that there will be no increase in the amount of money which freight forwarders must pay for the use of Channel Tunnel freight services, whatever the outcome of the negotiations between the Government and the owners of Eurotunnel?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Lord is asking for an assurance from the Government which would involve a degree of subsidy, but that would cause real difficulty in the way in which provision for the Channel Tunnel is managed. I accept what the noble Lord says. This is a serious situation. There are two aspects to it: there is a short-term dimension, to which the noble Lord alluded; and there is the long-running issue of freight services through the tunnel. I assure the noble Lord that these are major issues which concern Ministers.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, while SNCF has many admirable qualities, a willingness and a determination to promote interoperability between the different railway systems of Europe is not terribly high on its list of priorities? When my noble friend's colleagues in government speak to their French counterparts, can they do their utmost to ensure that the French are prepared to move on the issue of interoperability?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, that is, indeed, a critical concept. We all know that SNCF is extremely jealous of its own services and that, at times, it is reluctant to come to terms with the necessary interface that the Channel Tunnel offers in terms of both freight and passenger traffic. But, of course, this is a matter for negotiation, and I am grateful to my noble friend for helping to strengthen the hand of the railway system in this country.

The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as this country depends on imports and exports and as only a limited amount of trade can go through the Channel Tunnel, what are the Government doing to help our importers and exporters with respect to shipping and ports, given that they have just turned down the extension of Southampton at Dibden Bay?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Earl is right to refer to planning consent not being granted for that particular project. However, he will also recognise that there is extensive investment in the development of rail freight services in relation to several of our major ports, including Felixstowe. We plan to enhance rail links with the main rail routes throughout the United Kingdom on the basis of investment in those areas, and I can assure the noble Earl that freight is a significant dimension of that work.

Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, I refer to the answer given to my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester. Given the attitude of SNCF, which can be compared with the defence of the Maginot Line, is it not likely that this line is to be breached in the very near future? Does this not go back to the original Question asked by my noble friend Lord Berkeley; that is, that as interoperability becomes the norm between France, Germany, the Netherlands and so forth, it would make cross-Channel freight through the tunnel economic? That is the gap that we have to bridge, or in this case, tunnel, I suppose.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, my noble friend is right to refer again to the fact that SNCF is very clear about its interests. However, we should not exaggerate the position. The real problem with regard to the Channel Tunnel, as all noble Lords will appreciate, is with the border, the control of the company, and the strategy that the company has less than 90 days to produce in order that users can make appropriate arrangements. That is a very real difficulty, which at this stage probably outweighs the issue of the negotiations with SNCF on interoperability of services.

Universities Online

Baroness Perry of Southwark: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Why the online university UKeU is being dismantled.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the board of the Higher Education Funding Council for England decided in February 2004 to seek a restructuring of the activities and services of eUniversities. This decision was made in the light of the results of a review of the plans of UK eUniversities Worldwide, the company taking forward the project. This review noted the changes in the global financial market and the fact that student recruitment had not met planned targets in the first year.

Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, can she explain to the House how the Government got it so badly wrong? Why did they invest £62 million of taxpayers' money on a projection that hundreds of thousands of students would apply when I gather that only 900 applied, resulting in a cost of about £44,000 per student?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the Question would be more easily understood by looking back to 2000 when the proposals were put forward by the Higher Education Funding Council in what was felt to be an appropriate move to consider the role of e-learning worldwide. The noble Baroness is right about the numbers and costs. Indeed, it was for those reasons that the Higher Education Funding Council asked for the review and took the decisions it did.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House what has happened to the e-learning platform developed by Sun Microsystems, which I gather was a very substantial part of the project and which has been part of the cause of the problems that the project has hit?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am not entirely certain that it was a substantial part; certainly, it was a substantial investment in the learning platform. Noble Lords may know that the decision was taken to create a new platform as opposed to building on any other platform. My understanding is that discussions are currently under way with those who might seek to develop the platform further.

Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, what representations have the Government received from universities and the private sector since 2000?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am not entirely certain that I understand the question asked by the noble Baroness. I am not aware of any representations per se. All bar one of the institutions were part of the holding company for UKeU and, therefore, were involved in the process in that sense.

Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, can the Minister say whether one of the partial reasons for failure was the lack of accessibility of broadband to people who live in country districts, certainly in south-west Scotland and elsewhere?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I cannot give a specific answer to the noble Lord. What I can say is that this was aimed primarily at worldwide markets. The noble Lord will, of course, include Scotland in the worldwide market. We know that 38 countries were involved in studying online, from which we have 900 students, so there has been some attempt to develop this in a worldwide context.

Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, despite the difficulties with this project, to which my noble friend Lady Perry and the Minister referred, does she not agree that learning online and the related training for industrial subjects is very important and needs to be encouraged to the maximum extent?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I could not agree more. This is a critical part of our future, not only through curriculum online within schools and the opportunities that that gives but in terms of language learning and other studies where being able to deal directly with other countries is critical.

Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, what market research was done and by whom, which resulted in this projection of hundreds of thousands of applicants?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I do not have information on what numbers were originally projected in 2000 when HEFCE put forward the proposals, but I am very happy to obtain as much information as I can and write to the noble Baroness.

Business

Lord Grocott: My Lords, with permission, a Statement on the G8 Summit will be repeated this afternoon by my noble friend the Leader of the House at a convenient time after 4.30 p.m.

Business of the House: Standing Order 43

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That Standing Order 43 (Postponement and advancement of business) be dispensed with on Friday 25 June to allow the Motions standing in the name of the Baroness Byford to be advanced to Wednesday 23 June.—(Baroness Amos.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Armed Forces (Pensions and Compensation) Bill

Lord Bach: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That it be an instruction to the Grand Committee to which the Armed Forces (Pensions and Compensation) Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:
	Clauses 1 to 5, Schedule 1, Clause 6, Schedule 2, Clause 7, Schedule 3, Clauses 8 to 12.—(Lord Bach.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Ipswich Market Bill

Read a second time, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

Higher Education Bill

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
	Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Baroness Ashton of Upholland.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	Clause 29 [Director of Fair Access to Higher Education]:

Baroness Perry of Southwark: moved Amendment No. 23:
	Page 14, line 6, at end insert "who shall be subject to the principles of the Civil Service Commissioners' Recruitment Code"

Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 23 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 34A, 45, 47, 48, 51 and 53. This group of amendments attempts to create a rather different Office for Fair Access—OFFA—from that which is currently in the Bill while retaining all the necessary tools to ensure that every university works to widen access.
	I am grateful to the Minister for her helpful letter to me on this subject. As she will see, I have changed several of the amendments to which I spoke in Committee in the light of her comments. I am grateful to her also for her Amendment No. 24.
	Amendment No. 23 subjects the Secretary of State to a requirement that the principles of the Civil Service Commissioners' recruitment code should be followed in the appointment of the director of OFFA. We believe that the commissioners' code offers exemplary practice. In the words of the first commissioner, it is a way of ensuring that recruitment is impartial and that there is no political patronage. We want a director of OFFA—a very important post—who is neither a creature nor a crony of the Secretary of State.
	Amendment No. 34A lays out an alternative vision of the plans that universities will have to submit, but leaves the initiative with the universities' own creative ideas and not subject to very tight regulation. It removes regulation in the detail of how the plans for widening the pool of applications will be undertaken, but it also leaves out the phrase about "groups under-represented" in higher education, which is an infelicitous phrase and needs qualifying. Are we talking about social class groups, ethnic groups, geographical or perhaps groups from the north-east? "Groups under-represented" could mean anything, such as there not being enough blondes with long hair. I am unhappy with that phrase and our amendment does not include it.
	Amendment No. 45 also removes the regulation-making power of the Secretary of State and the Welsh Assembly in this regard. However, in relation to the financial detail—such as the fees to be charged and the amount of bursary the university will give—the Secretary of State will make regulations as determined under Clauses 22, 24, 25 and 26. We believe that there is no need for such regulations from the Secretary of State on the universities' broader plan for widening access.
	Under Amendments Nos. 47 and 48, all universities' strategic plans would continue to be sent to the funding councils. As I said in Committee, I believe that it is wrong to ask universities to develop their plans for widening applicant pools and improving access arrangements separately from their overall strategic plans. Universities submit strategic plans across the board—for financial development, buildings development, new courses and so on—and all of them are highly relevant to access. Widening access is currently part of those plans. To expect them to take out that part which relates to how they will recruit—how they will bring in their customers, if I may use business language—seems to me a very unusual and strange way to ask universities to do their planning.
	Therefore, these amendments will make it possible for universities to continue to submit one set of strategic plans which include plans for widening access and leaves the funding councils to determine the plans' format and the timing of their submission.
	However, Amendment No. 47 also requires the funding councils to pass on to OFFA the parts of the plans that deal with widening access. OFFA will then comment on the plans in dialogue with the universities and, if it thinks fit—that is crucial—approve them. That gives OFFA a considerable amount of power. If it does not approve the plans, the universities cannot charge fees. So it will clearly be extremely important for universities to get their plans for widening access approved by OFFA and to get them right.
	The chief executive of the Higher Education Funding Council for England, speaking on behalf of his board, told the House of Commons Select Committee that he sees no need for OFFA. He pointed out that the funding council has power to reward institutions which do well in recruiting these minority groups and that, indeed, it has already approved plans for widening access and rewarded the universities' efforts in that regard. He pointed out that the amount of money which the many institutions receive for their efforts in widening access is more than they get from the research assessment exercise.
	Our amendments further require OFFA to report to Parliament on the plans and their progress. That will give further power to the director of OFFA to ensure that universities take appropriate action.
	Most importantly, we believe that OFFA will be more effective as a promotional body than as one which controls by regulation and by punishment. That is why Amendments Nos. 51 and 53 take away OFFA's punitive power in respect of universities that fail to take the steps they outlined in their widening access plans. Power is left to the funding council and to OFFA, as directed by the Secretary of State, to penalise universities that do not follow their financial plans; in other words, those that do not charge the fees precisely as they said they would and do not provide the bursaries stated in their plans.
	I believe that making OFFA a body that has powers of punishment is not an adequate response to the kinds of behaviour we are talking about. Institutions should be committed to widening access, not simply to doing something in order to avoid punishment. I am thinking particularly of the welfare of applicants who, for example, are from groups that do not have a family tradition of higher education. I want those groups to receive genuine encouragement from the universities to which they apply and I want their applications to receive a warm welcome. That would not happen if some universities were engaging in this activity simply because they wanted to avoid any kind of punishment.
	When we discussed this matter in Committee the noble Baroness said she expected universities to develop a very positive relationship with OFFA. I cannot help but feel that if OFFA had these punitive powers, it would be rather like asking a motorist to develop a positive relationship with a traffic warden who had just slapped a fine on his car windscreen.
	We believe that institutions should be helped through powers of persuasion. I am therefore delighted to see the Minister's Amendment No. 24—although we have added an additional amendment to it, which we will discuss later. We do not believe that institutions should be brought to their knees—as they could be, as the fine could entail up to a whole year's grant if it were levied towards the end of the year—simply because they failed in their efforts.
	I want all institutions to address the widening access agenda, and I believe that HEFCE's current initiatives go a long way to ensuring that that becomes so. I do not believe these powers of OFFA are necessary. I think that all of these amendments go together as a total package. I beg to move.

Lord Dearing: My Lords, perhaps I may take a little time to go through this comprehensive list and plead for forgiveness in doing so. On the involvement of the Civil Service Commission, since that body appointed—am I wrong about that? Would the noble Baroness clarify?

Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, with the leave of the House, the amendment does not involve the Civil Service Commission. It simply asks that the Secretary of State shall follow the principles of the Civil Service Commissioners' recruitment code.

Lord Dearing: My Lords, I shall not pursue that matter. Had the noble Baroness wanted to draw an analogy with recruitment to the Civil Service, I would have said that the civil servant is by nature one who dances to another man's tune. The last thing we want is this man to dance to the Secretary of State's tune. However, forgive me.
	I move on to the diminution of the regulating power. I have for many years been a public servant and the chairman of several public bodies. As one who has on behalf of Ministers stroked the ear in private of various people in public positions, and as who has been on the receiving end of such informal encouragement to do a Minister's will, I find such a proposal worrying. I would much prefer the Secretary of State to discharge whatever he wishes to achieve through something that is on the public record; namely, a regulation.
	On the changes in the job of the organisations to which we are referring, and on the particular task of widening access, I am honestly concerned that Amendment No. 34A seems to water down the vigour of what is in the Bill. Although I have them in front of me, I shall not read out the different passages. However, I must say that I was very confused by new subsection (1B), which is concerned with attracting,
	"applications from as wide as possible a number of prospective students".
	I am not sure what,
	"as wide as possible a number",
	looks like. Possibly it is an infinite series. But I am clear that it takes away from the emphasis on attracting students from less advantaged homes and other under-represented groups. It could even mean that they had a duty to seek to encourage applications from foreign countries that are "under-represented"—whatever that might mean—in our universities. So I would not favour the wording and the thinking that underlies that particular amendment.
	We have discussed the involvement of the funding council before. It is much clearer if we have a body with a particular responsibility under statute. It should then get directly the information that it requires to discharge its responsibility and engage directly with institutions, rather than rely on another body to provide the information that it needs and then start to engage. That would mess it about.
	On the reduction of powers, the noble Baroness referred to punitive powers. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said earlier—he will forgive me if I remember wrongly—that in politics, perception is everything. It may not be everything, but it is an important part of life. We need to carry conviction with those who are worried that aspects of the Bill may, in spite of all that the Government are doing, reduce participation by young people from disadvantaged homes. We should not remove the power that enables the director to act, if he can reasonably conclude that the institution has not taken all reasonable steps—as provided in the government amendment, which I welcome—to obtain applications. It is reasonable for us to provide conviction that we mean something by the OFFA proposals by providing those reserve powers. Of course, they will have to be used sparingly. It would be unacceptable if the director were to impose swingeing financial penalties on institutions. The regulator will have to use the powers with discretion. He will have to retain the confidence of the institutions.
	If we are to get through the other place the kind of changes in funding that the universities so desperately need, we must leave the Cheshire cat visible, so that it is not just a smile on the face of those who want to see the back of the Bill.

Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: My Lords, I shall be brief. The noble Baroness, Lady Perry, and I have a similar view of how OFFA should work. It should have no remit over admissions; it should encourage applications from a wide range of potential students; and it should not impose a bureaucratic burden on institutions. However, although we share those aims, I am not convinced that the amendments will take us there. They remove the power of the Secretary of State to issue guidance under the clause, but he or she would retain the power to issue guidance to OFFA under Clause 30. It would be less satisfactory to have OFFA steered in that non-statutory way than to have regulations subject to stakeholder consultation and parliamentary scrutiny. It is difficult to believe that the Secretary of State would have no influence over OFFA. As the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, pointed out in Committee, it is better that that influence should be in the form of public regulation rather than private pressure.
	Also, through the package of amendments, the body to be set up would be very different from OFFA. In fact, it is so different that I fear that it would be viewed by another place as a replacement for, rather than an improvement of, OFFA. As your Lordships know, my aim has been to improve OFFA rather than to reject it completely. My preferred route to reach our shared aims is for the regulations on OFFA under this and other clauses to be subject to affirmative resolution and for there to be consultation with the higher education sector. That is the subject of a group of amendments in my name that we shall reach shortly.

Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I do not normally disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Perry. In fact, we have worked together on a number of areas concerning university education. But I must say that I cannot support this group of amendments. I tend to take a line more like that described by the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, and my noble friend Lady Warwick, but would perhaps go even further than them. My opposition to the amendments is because, as the noble Baroness said in her opening remarks, they would bring about a completely different set-up for OFFA—a set-up that I think would be less effective in what I feel is the fundamental thrust of the Bill: to widen access.
	I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, is second to none in her anxiety for access to be widened and has done much work in that respect. But we cannot just allow universities to freewheel and, at the same time, widen access. I said in Committee that access is more than just trying to ensure that state-educated young people with two or more A-levels have the same choice of university as do young people educated in the private sector, important though that is. It is much more fundamental than that.
	Amendment No. 34A, which would remove the reference to under-represented groups, destroys the whole basis for widening access. To me, widening access is a question of bringing in under-represented groups in our society. Sometimes they are geographical; sometimes they are ethnic; sometimes they are based on class. There is a whole range of young people who have not had an opportunity—because of their earlier education, I accept—to enter higher education. The Bill must deal with that effectively.
	Widening participation cannot be left to schools; universities, schools, the Learning and Skills Council and all the various networks of access programmes must be involved. Ultimately, it means that universities themselves must make modifications to their ethos and to the whole range of support facilities that they provide for young people. That cannot be done completely voluntarily; it needs regulation.
	To take my university as an example, anyone who examined the profile of the University of Bradford as it is now and as it was 10 years ago would find that it is completely different, with much greater involvement of young people from working-class areas, ethnic groups and the regions. Many factors have contributed to that. During the past 10 years, strategies have been developed to try to involve those groups of young people, but they have been adopted by certain universities, not across the board. If we are to widen access and change the nature of the courses provided in our universities, as my university of Bradford has done, more universities must not only present but monitor programmes to ensure that they are followed through.
	It is significant that in our debate on the Bill, little mention has been made of foundation courses or of the new 14 to 19 strategies, which are all aimed at bringing young people up to a standard at which they can benefit from higher education. It may not be a classical higher education; it may involve more workplace training and vocational education. Nevertheless, it can and will be of just as high a standard. I can claim for my own university, on the basis of assessments of teaching, research and student retention, that it can modify courses, change its ethos and adapt mottos to accommodate such young people without lowering standards.
	Like the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, I do not think that that can be done in an unregulated way. If we are not careful, we might find ourselves giving more power to HEFCE in this area than to OFFA. Surely, under the Bill as drafted, HEFCE is much more liable to influence by government than OFFA would be.
	The amendments might be counterproductive to what the noble Baroness wishes to provide, so I am afraid that I oppose them. I want some regulation in the system, as it is the only way that we will achieve the objectives and aspirations of the Bill.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, we support this group of amendments. In speaking in support of the amendments, I should like also to answer some of the questions that have arisen. It seems, for example, that the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, is wrong in suggesting that there is no regulation in the proposal. As noble Lords know, we originally argued that we did not need OFFA and that HEFCE already had the necessary powers. The aim of the amendments that we tabled in Committee was to subsume OFFA within the powers of HEFCE. There was a lot of dissension on that based on the argument that it would bring funding and regulation together into one body.
	I was much influenced in what I said then, and am influenced in what I say now, by the evidence given by the chief executive of HEFCE, Sir Howard Newby, to the House of Commons Education and Skills Committee last March. As the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, mentioned, he made it clear that, so far as he was concerned, HEFCE already monitored what was happening on access, and regulated it to some extent, because it already punished those who did not have access plans by withholding funds from them. Therefore, there was already mixing of the regulation and funding functions.
	The extent to which extra moneys have now been given to HEFCE to promote the access agenda indicates that it has yet further power to promote that agenda. The notion of what I call "OFFA within HEFCE" did not meet with favour in Committee. I concluded that this group of amendments was a good substitute for our proposal. The amendments contain many very sensible ideas. Rather than OFFA being a punitive, vindictive organisation, it becomes one concerned to help to promote, encourage and develop best practice in access. That is its main function; it is what the director of OFFA will do. It will do it separately from HEFCE but alongside it. The access plans are to be conceived within universities' overall strategic plans, which must be submitted to HEFCE.
	During our previous discussions on Report, the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, told us about the sets of plans that universities must produce constantly for HEFCE—in some senses, HEFCE's bureaucracy. Now we suggest that the proposal will not create extra bureaucracy, because the access plans will be produced within the context of the broad strategic plans for HEFCE. They will place real emphasis on access. Perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, would like to speak for herself, but I do not believe that she wishes in any way to diminish the emphasis on widening participation in this agenda.
	Originally, I hesitated to back this group because of the two little amendments at the very end, Amendments Nos. 51 and 53—the "or (c)" amendments. I argued that, if you have plans for access, it is very important that there is some sanction. What would you do if a university developed an access plan and then did nothing about it? One must recognise that two aspects are retained in this group of amendments. The first goes back to Clause 23(1)(a). Any university that does not have an approved plan will not be able to charge higher fees and will be stuck with the lower, basic Dearing fee, as I call it. If any university wants to charge a higher fee, it must have developed an access plan. That provision remains.
	What happens if a university just ignores the access plan and does nothing about it? What sanction is there? Amendment No. 47 has brought me round to backing this whole series of amendments, including Amendments Nos. 51 and 53. Subsection (1) of Amendment No. 47 states:
	"The Funding Councils shall provide to the relevant authority copies of that part of the Institutions Strategic Plans relating to Fair Access arrangements, which will then comment to each institution on the content of its plan and may, if it thinks fit, approve the plan".
	In other words, the process of approval of plans is still written into the amendments. The one thing lost is OFFA's ability to suggest to HEFCE that it eliminates grants and moneys other than those gained through raising fees. When we discussed the matter in Committee, we were generally agreed that there was a degree of vindictiveness in taking away other grants and loans, which was a sanction available to the Secretary of State. This proposal limits the sanctions to not being able to charge higher fees, which, in the circumstances, is probably fair and reasonable and would hit universities very hard. They are all looking forward to being able to charge higher fees, regret it though I may from these Benches.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Perry, will bear witness to the fact that I have not been won over that easily, because I was not convinced initially that this was what I wanted. I am now convinced, because we have changed the wording to provide that plans must be approved, otherwise universities may not charge higher fees. That seems a very sensible way forward. I thoroughly support the amendments.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, in supporting the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Perry, I congratulate her on the dogged determination and persistence with which she has pursued these matters. Perhaps the Minister will surprise me by accepting all the amendments, but I am genuinely puzzled about why the Government should have any difficulties with them. The exposition of the amendments by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, was masterful and set out the case. I do not propose to detain the House by going over the details.
	However, one thing, which is perhaps a little harsh, must be said. Having listened to the speeches by the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, and even the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, who told us that she was with us in spirit but could not quite bring herself to support the amendments, and that she had similar views but felt the remedy lay elsewhere, I feel that we are witnessing people making speeches in support of a deal that they made many months ago.
	The deal was that the Government would produce a Bill that would provide for the introduction of fees; and the price was an attack on the independence of the universities by the establishment of OFFA. At the beginning of the discussions on this, I was influenced by the arguments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, that perhaps the best thing would be to get rid of OFFA altogether and to leave it with HEFCE. That appealed to my radical instincts.
	There is considerable concern in universities about the role of OFFA. I spent the weekend with the noble Lord, Lord Baker, who arranged for endless academics to come and talk to me about this Bill. There is indeed a great deal of concern about OFFA. My noble friend's amendments put in the Bill, and give substance to, the assurances that the Government have been giving us. The Government keep telling us that OFFA will operate with a light touch. My noble friend has gone with the spirit of what was part of that deal, without actually encroaching on the autonomy of the universities. That is an important principle. We must see these amendments as a package.
	Since starting this exercise, the Government have published the Schwartz report, which talks about creating a central source of expertise and advice on admissions while adhering to the principle that autonomy on admissions should remain with the universities. That is what my noble friend's amendments seek to achieve. If there is general support for this amendment—and perhaps we will have to test the opinion of the House—but the Minister is not able to support it, I hope that she might go away and think about how she can respond to the real efforts that have been made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Sharp and Lady Perry, to find a way through this difficulty that meets the legitimate concerns of universities.
	In conclusion, I address the description given by the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, of civil servants as people who dance to another man's tune. Even he is finding it difficult to keep a straight face now. Next Christmas, I shall send him a copy of the collected works of "Yes, Minister" and "Yes, Prime Minister". One of the great values of civil servants is that they tell Ministers what their options are; Ministers then decide what to do. One of the great strengths of our Civil Service has always been its independence. With the amendment in respect of the appointment of the director, my noble friend seeks to give that imprimatur of independence that is always taken for granted as part of the Civil Service.
	I was concerned by the noble Lord's suggestion. Of course, civil servants act finally on the instructions of Ministers, but in giving advice and ensuring that the functions of government take place, they operate in an impartial way. That is what we would expect of the director of OFFA, and that is what my noble friend's amendment seeks to achieve. I support the amendment, and I hope that the Minister will feel able to do so, or at least offer us the prospect of being able to do so at a later stage.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I begin by saying that I was thrilled to hear about the noble Lord's weekend. Perhaps he might have taken the academics fishing with him? Sadly, no. Those of us watching the football perhaps had less of an enjoyable time.
	I recognise completely the work done by the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, in supporting widening access. I will address my remarks in that context. It is important to reiterate to the House that we see the creation of access plans, and their approval and enforcement, as absolutely fundamental to our package of proposals in this Bill. The real, widespread concerns are not to be underestimated. They have been expressed in another place and elsewhere, and in our debate by my noble friend Lady Lockwood in relation to the implications for and the potential impact on those from particular backgrounds who may feel that this is a deterrent. This is not about making deals or packages. It is about saying that if we wish to move to the kind of variable fees that have been described, and which are fundamental to this Bill, hand in hand—side by side—goes OFFA. That is a clear Government position.
	I have said all along that I am happy to clarify the director's role; his independence and his non-interference with admissions and academic freedom. We have already accepted some specific amendments on these subjects, and I am happy to continue to listen to arguments about how these could be improved. Perhaps noble Lords will see later that I have indeed listened carefully with regard to the way in which the director works, his role in relation to good practice and part-time students and similar issues. What must remain unchanged is the basic model of the director's existence and core functions; approving, monitoring and, if necessary, enforcing access plans. We have had months of discussion with universities about our approach, and they understand that this Bill comes as a package. The vast majority of universities recognise it as reasonable. The director, as we have proposed his role, is part of that package, and it would not be right to unpick it.
	I will now address the individual amendments in this group. As the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, said, Amendment No. 23 concerns the appointment of the director. I am well aware that in debating these issues in Committee, the noble Baroness focused on the need for the independence of the director. She felt strongly then, as did the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, that for independence to be secure the director needed to be a civil servant recruited through the Civil Service Commission.
	As I said in Committee, an executive non-departmental public body, headed by an independent office holder appointed in accordance with Commissioner for Public Appointments Code of Practice for Ministerial Appointments to Public Bodies is the most satisfactory solution. It would be odd for the director to be appointed subject to the principles of the Civil Service Commission when he is not a civil servant. There is another mandatory set of guidance for ministerial appointments to public bodies which achieves the same fundamental principle of selection for appointment on merit on the basis of fair and open competition.
	I was strengthened in my view when I studied the sixth report to your Lordships' House of the Select Committee on the Constitution, with its most distinguished membership, representatives of which are present in the House today. I am sure that they will correct me if I misquote. That report, The Regulatory State: Ensuring its Accountability was published on 6 May, and I apologise that it was not to hand in Committee. The committee looked closely at the relationships between regulators and Ministers, and we have had debates and discussions with the noble Lord, Lord Norton, and others on other aspects of the Bill. In chapter 7, the committee looked carefully at the question of ministerial appointments to regulators, many of which are classified as non-departmental public bodies, and at how successfully the Nolan principles, enshrined in the OCPA code, offered reassurance. In paragraph 126, the committee concluded:
	"We recommend that Ministers should remain responsible for appointing regulators, subject to Nolan rules, to ensure proper responsibility and accountability".
	The Select Committee did not offer a view as to whether an NDPB or a non-ministerial government department was the better solution. The committee did, however, say that whatever level of independence has been granted by Parliament, Ministers have generally sought to maintain that independence, and commented that if a regulatory body's role is clear, its independence is better secured. That precisely summarises the principle that we have tried to bear in mind in creating the director, and it is the reason why we have resisted amendments elsewhere that would widen the director's remit and blur his responsibilities. We have also spoken to the Office of the Civil Service Commissioners who have confirmed and agreed to be quoted as saying that the Commissioner for Public Appointments code is the correct code to follow for this particular appointment and not their own recruitment code, which applies only to civil servants. Of course, the Civil Service Commissioners' code and the OCPA code support the fundamental principle of selection for appointment on merit on the basis of fair and open competition. On the OCPA guidance, Dame Rennie Fritchie said:
	"My task is to ensure that all government departments have systems for public appointments which are visible, fair and open. Further, that all appointments within my remit are made on merit and contribute to the development of strong and balanced boards and public bodies".
	But the code is for ministerial appointments to public bodies and the other is for civil servants. The Office for Fair Access will be an NDPB, and the noble Baroness, Lady Perry of Southwark, has accepted in her amendments that the director will not be a civil servant. So, it is self-evident that the OCPA code of practice should apply.
	Amendment No. 34A would remove regulation-making powers and put details of the content of plans in the Bill. I understand the desire to take a cautious approach to regulation-making powers in any Bill. That is why we have produced draft regulations that, I hope, make it clear how we propose to use the power that we are taking. It is for institutions to determine the detail of the content of their plans, but it is reasonable for them to do so within a regulatory framework. Regulations are a legal constraint on the director that Parliament must, in that instance, approve. Lack of regulation-making powers leads to greater uncertainty and the risk of a more arbitrary approach.
	Concern was expressed that the Secretary of State might have too much power. Any regulations laid in respect of this or any other clause will be subject to the scrutiny of Parliament. As noble Lords will know and my noble friend Lady Warwick of Undercliffe will acknowledge, we amended the Bill in Committee to make the regulation-making powers in respect of the content of plans, which the amendment would remove, subject to affirmative resolution.
	Regulation-making powers also give greater flexibility. Without regulations, the requirement that plans should include measures to attract applications, provide financial support and provide financial information will be fixed in the Bill without any opportunity to qualify that requirement or even remove it in due course. The amendment would also pre-empt any decision that the National Assembly for Wales might take on the contents of plans, should it decide to introduce variable fees.
	Another effect of the amendment would be to remove the reference to the promotion of higher education. In Committee, I explained that we had no intention that plans in England should be related to the promotion of higher education; they should be related solely to fair access. However, in recognition of the concerns that noble Lords expressed in Committee, which are reflected in the noble Baroness's amendment, we have tabled Amendment No. 33, which will ensure that the phrase "promotion of higher education" does not apply to English plans. I hope that that reassures noble Lords, as far as England is concerned.
	There would be two other effects. First, the reference to under-represented groups would be removed and instead institutions would have to take measures to attract applications from,
	"as wide as possible a number of prospective students".
	That changes the focus from widening access to general recruitment, which is not the purpose of the director. Also, it is far from clear what a wide number—as opposed to, for example, a wide range—of prospective students means.
	Another effect would be to remove the requirement to provide information to the director. We have made it clear that that is not intended to be a bureaucratic burden and will not involve onerous reporting requirements. However, it is vital that it happens. If the director cannot seek information where necessary, he cannot make informed judgments. They could be bad decisions: bad for students and bad for institutions. For those reasons, I must continue to resist the amendments.
	Amendment No. 47 would create some difficulties, not least for institutions. One problem is that it would delete the power for the director to issue guidance. We are giving the director that power to ensure that universities are clear about what will be expected of their access plans. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that institutions need certainty about the expectations of the director; otherwise, they will draw up plans on the basis of guesswork. That would not be helpful. The institutions need to know where the goalposts are, an appropriate analogy at the moment. I cannot see how removing the ability of the director to issue guidance would help anyone, let alone the institutions.
	The amendment would also delete the regulation-making power in Clause 32 and create a requirement that institutions produce a strategic plan for HEFCE in perpetuity. I am sure that that goes beyond what institutions or the funding council would expect. Noble Lords referred to Sir Howard Newby's comments to the Select Committee. They were made some months ago, and I can say that HEFCE has been closely involved in our discussions and planning and accepts the Government's view that OFFA should be a separate and independent non-departmental public body.
	I reiterate what I said as early as Second Reading: of course, we said that HEFCE could regulate fees, but we do not believe that it is the best body to do so. HEFCE is a funding body. It is much closer to the Government and has a specific remit to fulfil with regard to the institutions. Here, we are creating a regulator, and that is different.
	The amendment would delete the regulation-making power and place a duty on the director to require institutions to supply him with details of the financial assistance provided to students. That would be a separate return in addition to the widening participation strategy. The noble Baroness is concerned that picking out part of an institution's strategy—widening access—is the wrong approach, so I want to explain the distinction.
	In England, institutions are required by HEFCE to produce a range of strategies covering different areas, such as teaching and learning, human resources and so on. We believe that they serve a useful purpose, but they are different from access plans. They are intended to be strategies, as their name suggests. They are general statements of aims and purpose. They may well contain details of what universities hope to do and their expected direction of travel. Access plans are different. They are a commitment by an institution, on the basis of which the director agrees that the institution can raise its fees above the standard level. They may have some of the same elements, but we expect them to be more specific. They are firm commitments.
	To ensure that the institutions need not provide returns to the director and to HEFCE, we have, I suggest to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, made it clear that we expect that access plans will subsume widening participation strategies after 2006. That position has been discussed with the sector and with the Higher Education Funding Council for England. It has also been discussed with, agreed with and welcomed by the Better Regulation Task Force, which has been concerned to minimise the cost of producing plans and avoid unnecessary bureaucracy. The amendment would create uncertainty for institutions in preparing and producing their access plans. It would add to, rather than reduce, bureaucracy.
	Amendment No. 48 is an unusual amendment. The idea that a funding council might make regulations is probably unprecedented. Its spirit is consistent with Amendment No. 47, in that it would give the funding councils the right to decide how long an access plan should last. I do not agree that that is the right way forward. I have explained why access plans should not be coterminous with other plans or strategies, and I do not believe that responsibility for determining the duration of access plans should rest with the funding councils. It is right that the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales should make the regulations, which will, of course, be subject to parliamentary scrutiny, as I have already said.
	Through Amendments Nos. 51 and 53, the noble Baroness seeks to prevent the director or the relevant authority in Wales imposing any sanctions for breaches, other than those relating to fee levels. It is not unreasonable that an institution's plan should be looked at and monitored as a whole. Approval of a plan confers on an institution the right to charge higher fees, providing a significant stream of income. We have always made it clear, in England, that that should come with a responsibility to ensure that access is protected and broadened, a responsibility that we envisage being enshrined in the commitments that universities will make as part of their access plans. It is a something-for-something arrangement.
	It is important that universities and students should know that those are real commitments. The existence of possible sanctions is a part of that. I have said on several occasions that I do not expect the sanctions to be used other than rarely, if ever, not least because I recognise the sincere desire of the sector to ensure fair access based solely on merit and ability. In the Bill and in our draft regulations, we provide a framework that constrains the relevant authority's action on sanctions, but they are still an important part of making a reality of access plans. They are not simply a commitment to stick to the fee level; they should be considered as a whole. It is the measures that an institution proposes to protect and widen access that the director will consider when making a decision to approve a plan.
	Such commitments are important—if an institution unreasonably breaks or ignores them, some sanctions may follow. It may be that traffic wardens do not go down well with the people to whom they give penalty notices, but the principle that there should be consequences for parking in the wrong place is not a bad one. It is important that we are clear about that; otherwise, the commitments will be just aspirations, when they need to be firm commitments.
	I recognise the need to provide safeguards and to avoid sanctions being applied unreasonably, which is also a concern that was expressed by noble Lords. For that reason, we have brought forward a government amendment to achieve the intentions expressed so eloquently in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, who, sadly, is not in his place. Amendment No. 52, which stands in my name, will ensure that sanctions cannot be imposed on any institution that can demonstrate that it has taken all reasonable steps to comply with the provisions of the plan.
	In summary, the amendments create a great deal of uncertainty and bureaucracy. I have not even begun to look at issues such as what would happen if the director and HEFCE disagreed about a component that was common to plans and widening participation. That would simply be unworkable. The director needs to be appointed in the way that we have said. I have given reassurances from all those who are involved, on which I hope the noble Baroness will reflect.
	We expect the director to operate independently within a clearly defined framework. He or she will be appointed fairly, in accordance with the Commissioner for Public Appointments' Code of Practice. Regulations will be open to scrutiny by Parliament. On the basis of everything that I have put on the record, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that careful reply. I think that she has some misconceptions about what the amendments would do. She has not reassured me at all about the appointment of the director. Recently, we have had too many examples of appointments to public bodies that have not demonstrated complete independence and have led to widespread criticisms of "cronyism" or "creatures of government".
	I find it surprising that the Minister resists so strongly what seems to us to be a fairly reasonable and mild amendment. The processes should be widely recognised as exemplary practice of the Civil Service Commissioners' recruitment code. It was a carefully conceived code to ensure that there is impartial recruitment and that no political patronage is possible. The Minister has acknowledged that we have withdrawn any suggestion that this person is a civil servant, although I believe that civil servants are independent in their mind and in their advice, exactly as my noble friend said. Nevertheless, this is an appointment to a public body: it is right that the most exemplary practice should be used.
	Briefly, I turn now to three points made by the Minister. First, I am surprised she said that our amendment excludes from the plan a way for universities to describe how they will improve access to higher education for those groups that, currently, are poorly inclined to apply. That is an aspiration which we share. Amendment No. 34A clearly states that the plans of the institutions,
	"must include provisions relating to the promotion of equality of opportunity in connection with access to higher education".
	That clearly states that the plans must include the steps that will be taken in order to provide access. I simply find the phrase "groups under-represented in higher education" ambiguous. It is simply a linguistic matter that we have put much more clearly and in a much more straightforward way.
	Secondly, I turn to the Minister's reservations about whether OFFA has any suitable powers left. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, powerfully said that the power to approve the plan is extremely important. If a plan is not approved, fees cannot be charged and a great deal of money will be lost. In addition, if a plan is approved but the university is not up to scratch, the fact that every year the director of OFFA will report to Parliament on progress is a very powerful incentive. What university wants Parliament to be told that it has not been pulling its weight in respect of promises that it has made?
	Finally, the Minister said that she thinks that we have left the universities "freewheeling"—a phrase that I think was used by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood. Of course, the funding councils already issue quite precise guidance about the format and timing of university strategic plans, which they will continue to do. Therefore, universities will not be freewheeling. They will, however, be able to be creative.
	I am sorry but I am not convinced by what the Minister has said. I wish to test the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 23) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 142; Not-Contents, 122.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 24:
	Page 14, line 6, at end insert—
	2 (2A) The Director is to have such functions relating to plans as are conferred on him by or under this Part. (2B) In addition, the Director may, where he considers it appropriate to do so— (a) identify good practice relating to the promotion of equality of opportunity in connection with access to higher education, and 7 (b) give advice about such practice to publicly-funded institutions. (2C) In subsection (2B)(a), "publicly-funded institution" means any institution receiving grants, loans or other payments from the Higher Education Funding Council for England under section 65 of the 1992 Act or from the Teacher Training Agency under section 5 of the 1994 Act."

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, we debated in Committee whether the Director of Fair Access should have a role in promoting best practice in fair access and I said then that I was willing to accept in principle the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, but was unable to do so because it was technically defective.
	The director's main role is to regulate fees, but through his overview of access plans he will also be well placed to see what interventions are most successful, and to make institutions aware of one another's successes. To that extent, he is likely to have a view on good practice and would certainly be able to offer further guidance to any institution that sought it. Certainly we would hope that there would be regular dialogue between the director and organisations such as HEFCE and its Action on Access co-ordinators to ensure that best practice is shared widely.
	I have therefore tabled my own amendment, as promised, which I believe embraces the spirit of the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, giving the director a power to identify and promote good practice. I beg to move.

Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 24, Amendment No. 24A:
	Line 2, after "have" insert "a general duty to encourage applications to institutions of higher education by prospective students who are members of groups which are under-represented in higher education, and"

Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, a number of the concerns which most of those involved in higher education have expressed in relation to OFFA and the Director of Fair Access have been mitigated by amendments already accepted and others which we hope will continue to be considered and perhaps passed today.
	However, I would still like to understand precisely what the Director of Fair Access will achieve in practice. We are assured that he or she will not be involved in admissions. Amendment No. 24 usefully clarifies that he has to have functions relating to plans. That we already knew and the focus, as we have just discussed, is on those plans. Clause 31 indicates that every university charging top-up fees must have a plan for every course, to promote higher education and equality of opportunity in connection with access. Reference is made to groups that are under-represented in higher education. That was the phrase questioned by my noble friend Lady Perry, but I have incorporated it in my amendment.
	I take it that it is the Minister's understanding that these plans will include grants or bursaries for under-privileged students, and that these will vary within a given university from subject to subject. Presumably these grants or bursaries refer to the costs of student maintenance. However, I am still uncertain as to whether they will include remission of fees and, if so, to what extent they will duplicate the loan provisions already planned for.
	My main point, however, and the reason that I felt it appropriate to table this modest amendment, is that the central problem with access to higher education is that of encouraging applications; it is not a question of what happens to the applications once they have been received by the universities. To that extent, the nub of the problem does not lie within the universities themselves; the under-representation lies in the applications, not in the admissions. If prospective students will not apply, they cannot be admitted. I remain doubtful about the efficacy of all these plans and modifications of plans in achieving that objective.
	In Committee, I tabled an amendment drawing attention to the circumstance that all the key decisions are, in practice, made in the schools by the pupils, who decide whether to apply for a particular course at a particular university or whether to apply to university at all. It is there that pupils decide whether to apply.
	In a recent letter the Minister kindly provided me with some figures, for which I thank her. They simply underline the case that this is an area of deep concern. I shall not quote extensively from the figures, which are well known and refer to participation in higher education by social class. I note that in the most recent year for which the Minister sent me figures—2001—class one, the professional class, had a representation of 79 per cent; then, as you go down through the classes, the percentage reduces until you come to class five, the unskilled class, which had a representation of 15 per cent.
	I totally agree with the Government, Universities UK, HEFCE and everyone present that it is a sad reflection on our current system that that low figure of 15 per cent is to be compared with 79 per cent for professionals. The question, however, is how to modify the situation.
	Does the Minister really imagine that every department in every university in the land busily writing plans at the behest of the Director of Fair Access is going to greatly change matters? The lack of ambition lies in the schools; the ignorance of opportunities lies in the schools; and sometimes the prejudice against some of our best universities lies in the schools. As we all recall, that prejudice has been promoted rather than countered by some senior Ministers in the Government. If the noble Baroness wishes me to be more explicit, I shall be happy to oblige; otherwise, I shall not trouble the House with a familiar story. It is that kind of prejudice that leads to low applications and low ambitions.
	That is the motivation behind my very modest amendment. I have taken the point eloquently made in Committee by the noble Baroness that extra obligations imposed upon schools may be unwelcome, so there are none in the amendment. I have taken her point that data will be available elsewhere, so I have not put any obligation upon the director to publish data. I note, too, the anxiety of the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, that the powers of the Director of Fair Access should not be unduly widened, and I share her concerns.
	I have come to the conclusion that fiddling around with plans is unlikely to be enough. My prediction is that the introduction of top-up fees—albeit met by student loans—will have a negative impact upon access which all manner of plans will do little to counter. I believe that the effects of the Bill will be to diminish fair access. That is my concern, of which the amendment is but a pale reflection. I fear that the participation of members of groups who are under-represented in higher education will not significantly increase as a result of the Bill. I shall not go over that ground again.
	Students in the lower financial groups, particularly group five, are debt averse. Although noble Lords have made clear how very fair, in a sense, are the provisions for loans to meet the fees, it is also clear that students from families in group five are much less likely than students from families in group one to take up such loans and their parents are much less likely to pay those loans off for them.
	The unfortunate director does not even have a clear mission other than adjudicating upon these possibly irrelevant plans. The issue is applications—applications by people who are at school when they make them. Unless we give at least some recognition to this factor, I predict that the entire process will be counter-productive. That is the purpose of my modest amendment. I realise that if it is carried it will not significantly change the situation. My fear about the Bill is that in two or three years we shall be lamenting its negative effects because students—particularly students from poor families—are debt averse. Although the plans are no doubt intended to counter this, the real problems lie in the schools, and the Bill does nothing at all to address that factor. I beg to move.

Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment No. 25 in the group. I thank the Minister for bringing forward Amendment No. 24 in response to our discussions in Committee. It gives the director the duty of identifying good practice and giving advice about it.
	Amendment No. 25 seeks to add to that, not the original duty of providing appropriate training—which previously the Minister had said would be inappropriate—but simply the duty of promoting appropriate training. There are very good precedents for this; many other government departments promote training for matters in which they have an interest. For example, when I chaired the Chartermark Judges Panel, we promoted training around the country to help people who wished to apply for a Chartermark. There are many examples of this kind.
	Secondly, I believe that training will be urgently needed for the reasons so powerfully given by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, when she spoke to an earlier group of amendments. Reaching out to inner city schools, further education colleges and people in their twenties who are tucked away in jobs or in their homes, is very difficult. There will be a need for a great deal of expertise to be shared with the universities which have not yet made much inroad into widening access by those which have.
	I hope the Minister will feel able to accept Amendment No. 25, which is very much along the lines of what she said in her response to the earlier amendment in Committee.

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am a little puzzled by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, in support of his amendment. I do not have too much difficulty with the amendment, but some of his statements in support of it puzzled me.
	I am particularly worried by his suggestion that every department in every university would be writing plans. That does not seem to me to be a likely consequence of what is being proposed. It might be true of the research assessment exercise, under which universities are being assessed department by department, but in this case a central plan would be produced by that part of the university concerned with dealing with applications from students, with the marketing of the university and with the outreach of the university. It would not require every department to write a plan. Surely the noble Lord would agree with that.
	I also wish to comment on one other matter that he raised. He said that it is entirely up to the schools to improve the range of students applying to our universities. I accept that the schools have an enormously important part to play, as do parents and others who influence young people, but I think that the universities have a part as well. It is a partnership between the student, their family, friends and those who influence them, schools, further education institutions and employers. We must not keep thinking that everybody who goes to university these days comes from schools. We know that huge numbers of mature students study in our system, many part time, and it is employers who count.
	In dealing with schools, FE colleges or employers, the universities have to be proactive. They have to play a role; they cannot simply sit there and wait for people to come, as happened 30 or 40 years ago. Therefore, I want to emphasise something that I did not think was emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew. There is a part that universities have to play in supporting wider applications. The way in which universities do this can put people off; it can lead to fewer rather than more people from a wider range of backgrounds going to university.
	If I may be anecdotal for a moment, I remember, when I was at Birkbeck, being worried by the very small number of ethnic minority students who were coming to study in an institution which was, after all, giving a second chance to a wide range of Londoners and people from beyond London. I found that we had not done anything to go out and encourage them to come and they did not see it as a place to which they could go. When we did so, however, a large number of students from black and Asian communities in London went there to study.
	I support what the Government are doing here because it encourages everybody who works in universities to try harder by a whole variety of different policies to work with employers and educational institutions which support young people, and older, mature, people who want to continue their studies in higher education.

Baroness Warnock: My Lords, in supporting the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, I feel I must respond to the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, on two counts. First, in a number of universities, individual departments will have to make their own plans or at least contribute very heavily to those of the university. Part of what makes it difficult to attract applicants from some schools is the immense gap between what they have done at school and what they will be expected to do at university, and they are very conscious of that. There are particular difficulties in attracting applications to study modern languages, to say nothing of the classics, and mathematics. Special courses have been laid on for years in Cambridge—this would be part of the plan—to introduce candidates who have scraped through their A-level mathematics but no more to concepts that they would never have heard of if they had not had at least a month of special teaching when they came to Cambridge.
	On the second point about universities being inactive, I am sure that some have been. However, in 1971, when my husband became principal of Hertford College, Oxford, a very energetic project was already ongoing, which was supported by undergraduates and by a specially appointed Fellow of the college, to talk to pupils in schools in inner cities and try to persuade them to apply to Oxford. So I do not think it is true that universities have been doing nothing for 30 or 40 years. As for the plans, I am afraid they would involve a good deal of work by the university, department by department.

Lord Dearing: My Lords, I welcome the Government's proposal, even though I am something of a minimalist regarding OFFA's role. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, that if we are to solve the problem of access, the main solution must lie in schools improving achievement at GSCE, achieving increased staying-on rates and achieving increased numbers of students getting at least two decent A-levels. However, I am not with the noble Lord in undervaluing or underestimating the contribution that individual universities can and should make.
	I know something of the University of Hull, my own university. I have been engaged with it in taking very determined action in a city which for years had the poorest GCSE results in the country. We went out to young people to get them to raise their aspirations by guaranteeing them a place at the university if they attended a course and did reasonably well. The University of Dundee does the same in summer schools, as does the University of Glamorgan—the University of the Valleys. Universities can do a great deal. In addition, generous bursary schemes will be very influential.
	I believe that the essence of the thinking here is to get each university to take personal responsibility for going out to and encouraging those from disadvantaged backgrounds to raise their aspirations and help them to see their opportunities. I am a little doubtful about what OFFA, sitting somewhere with, it is to be hoped, a very small number of people, can do with regard to this. I am not sure that those kids would be very influenced by worthy pieces of paper sent out from some central body. I think it requires personal contact and the people, in great numbers, who can make those personal contacts are the institutions.
	On training, I am very glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, has changed the wording of her proposal to "promote". However, I have a problem about the word. I took the trouble to look it up in my dictionaries and I was not much wiser. I am in favour if it means to encourage. In sport, it means taking financial responsibility for; does it mean removing responsibility from universities or minimising it in their decision to train their staff in good practice, as is necessary? I am in favour of encouraging them but not of telling them what to do. I have some reservations about the word.

Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, I have no difficulty with Amendment No. 25. It would give the Director of Fair Access the responsibility and duty to promote training. To my way of thinking, to promote training will ensure that appropriate training takes place. Where it is not taking place, there will be a power for OFFA to ensure that or to work through other institutions to ensure that.
	Like the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, I think there is a great need for training in this area. The more organisations that are aware of that, the better that will be, so long as their efforts can be co-ordinated. I see that as part of the duty to promote that OFFA would have.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I was much taken with what the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, said about the importance of raising aspirations. I shall not go over ground that has already been covered in terms of the need for this to be a "both/and" provision, not an "either/or" one. It is about all those who have the ability to empower young people or help them make the right decisions to act in their various different ways to achieve that. There is a great deal of unanimity among noble Lords about that.
	There is an important distinction to make between the role of the Director of Fair Access and the role of the institutions. We have said that the role of the director is, in principle, to approve and monitor the access plans, which set out the measures that the institutions are taking. In return, as we described—this is the something for something—they will be able to raise their fees.
	I believe that the director's role in overseeing access plans will result in more applications from under-represented groups. But it is important that it is the institutions themselves that do the outreach and provide the bursaries. It is they, not the director, that will be directly involved in encouraging applications from under-represented groups, building on—as has been indicated many times—the good work already being done in this area. The director's role is that of regulator. It is important that this is in the context of all the other players who help young people strive for greater opportunities in their lives.
	The director will have a role in identifying and disseminating good practice. However, it is the good practice of institutions that the director will be identifying rather than his own. Therefore, although I share the noble Lord's concern for fair access, I cannot agree that the duty to encourage applications should lie directly with the director. It should be a duty placed on institutions by the commitments they make in their plans, should they decide to charge higher variable fees. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord is able to withdraw his amendment.
	Amendment No. 25 would add a duty for the director to promote appropriate training to the power to identify and advise on good practice proposed by my amendment. The noble Baroness will not be surprised to hear that there is a technical defect with the amendment because "may . . . have a duty" is not correct. However, I recognise what the noble Baroness seeks to achieve. I am grateful for her explanation of the change that she has made from Committee by asking the director to promote such training. However, I assure the noble Baroness that an amendment is not necessary to achieve that aim because the director would be empowered, through the government amendment that I put forward, to promote opportunities for training and encourage institutions to take them up, although it would be for the institution to decide whether to do so.
	I acknowledge the importance of training and development. As the noble Baroness will know, probably better than me, a lot of informal training is already available through individual institutions—Aimhigher Partnerships, Action on Access, the National Disability Team and the Learning and Teaching Support Network—a great deal of which is shared at conferences and workshops held by different bodies. I have every expectation that the director will use these opportunities to promote good practice.
	I do not feel that it would be right to place a legal duty on the director to promote appropriate training. He is empowered to promote good practice through the government amendment, and on the basis that he is likely to become aware of a great deal of such practice, including training, I am sure that the director will, over time, play a significant role. I am not sure that giving him an explicit duty adds anything in that context. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, I have no wish to trouble the House with a Division on my amendment, so I shall withdraw it in a moment. I agree with much of what has been said and with many of the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone. I fully accept that it is important that universities continue to make every effort to attract applicants to their courses in very much the manner described by the noble Lord, Lord Dearing. The problem is that I feel that, although all these multiple efforts such as university lecturers rushing round the country on buses and talking in schools are worthy, they will not really get to the heart of the problem. However, I have already indicated that in my speech and I do not wish to detain the House, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 25, as an amendment to Amendment No. 24, not moved.]
	On Question, Amendment No. 24 agreed to.

G8 Summit

Baroness Amos: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:
	"With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a Statement on the G8 Summit in the United States, which I attended last week. I thank President Bush for his chairmanship of the summit and the people of Georgia for hosting it. I have placed copies of the Chair's summary and summit documents in the House Libraries.
	"At the outset, I am sure that the whole House will join me in expressing my condolences to the families of the two British contractors killed in Iraq this morning.
	"At the G8 summit, we all agreed on the importance of transferring authority in Iraq at the end of the month to a fully sovereign Iraqi Government. We welcomed the formation of the new Iraqi Interim Government. The unanimous adoption by the UN Security Council of the resolution on Iraq demonstrates the international consensus to support the new government of Iraq under Prime Minister Allawi and to support the vision of a modern, democratic, federal and stable Iraq.
	"The new president of Iraq expressed his thanks for the sacrifices made by the coalition forces to free his country from the evils of the Saddam regime. He was absolutely clear that there was no desire among the Iraqi people to go back to the past. He entirely rejected the notion that the people of Iraq were unable to make democracy work or that the insurgents represented anything other than a small minority of Iraqis. Indeed, he described the reality to us vividly. Those who carry out violent attacks, blowing up water and oil pipelines, leaving ordinary Iraqis to go without power, are not patriots, he said. They are terrorists whose agenda is to cause chaos. They are determined to stop us succeeding. But we will succeed, with Iraq not just a better place for Iraqis but for the wider region and the world.
	"This led on to a discussion of the initiative to help build reform across the broader Middle East and North Africa region. We agreed a set of proposals to help bring greater democracy, freedom and stability to the whole of that region, working in support of those in the region who want to make progress towards modernisation and reform. Reform must of course come from within. The G8 responded positively to ideas from regional leaders, most notably at the Arab League Summit in Tunis, where Arab leaders expressed their determination
	"firmly to establish the basis for democracy".
	"We met a number of leaders from the region—from Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Iraq, Jordan, Yemen and Turkey. We agreed a comprehensive and detailed plan of support to give momentum to the initiative. We set out concrete measures to address the illiteracy, poverty and under-development of the region, to make the most of the region's entrepreneurial and cultural traditions on which it could thrive. We established the Forum for the Future, which will bring together foreign and economic Ministers from the G8 and countries in the region. The inaugural meeting will be held in the autumn.
	"We also discussed the Middle East peace process. We agreed that the basis for progress is still the road map, which sets out the path to the two-state solution. We agreed that the quartet should meet in the region before the end of this month, and that it should now come up with a specific set of actions to restore momentum on the road map. Those should cover political reform of the Palestinian Administration, a security plan and an economic plan.
	"Taken together, all these various initiatives amount to a vision of a Middle East which is no longer a source of instability and extremism, but of increasingly more democratic states which respect different religions and human rights and can live peacefully within the world community.
	"On the final day of the summit, we concentrated on Africa. Leaders from Ghana, Nigeria, Senegal, South Africa, Algeria and Uganda joined us. African issues are now a well established part of the G8 agenda. We agreed a number of new measures. We have to ensure that, when there is a conflict in Africa, we have the peacekeeping ability to back up and support a political settlement. So the G8 made a commitment to ensure that up to 75,000 peacekeeping troops will be trained and ready to be deployed on peacekeeping operations by 2010. The UK intends to train, directly or indirectly, 17,000 African troops in this period.
	"We also discussed the grave humanitarian and political crisis in the Sudan, which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development visited last week. The UK is the second largest donor to Sudan, giving £36.5 million this year alone. The G8 pledged assistance in ending the conflict and bringing humanitarian assistance to those in need. We agreed to work together to help the UN lead the international effort to avert a major humanitarian disaster. We also agreed a new initiative to extend AIDS vaccine research. We confirmed the polio eradication target. We agreed on new measures to help break the vicious cycle of famine and food insecurity in the Horn of Africa.
	"The Heavily-Indebted Poor Countries Initiative has given welcome relief to the crushing burden of debt that has held back so many of the poorest countries. We have already agreed some 70 billion dollars of debt relief for 27 countries, 23 of which are in Africa. We reaffirmed our commitment to implement and finance this initiative fully. We agreed to work with all parties concerned to extend the initiative from the end of this year to the end of 2006. This agreement opens the door for another 10 countries to benefit from over 30 billion dollars of debt relief. This will free up vital resources which can be spent on health and education and the eradication of poverty.
	"This series of initiatives confirms the growing importance of Africa for all of us in the G8. The UK alone will spend £1 billion in Africa next financial year. A major part of the agenda for our G8 Summit next year will be the work of the Africa Commission that we have established. The commission will report back next spring with a series of agreed recommendations for action. We will then work with the rest of the G8 to take them forward.
	"The other major part of the agenda for the UK presidency of the G8 in 2005 will be climate change. We need to make progress with ratification of Kyoto; but we also need to look beyond Kyoto and its 2012 time frame.
	"We had an extensive discussion of the world economy. We agreed on the need for further structural reforms in our economies to accelerate growth. We discussed the current level of oil prices, notably the recent pledge by OPEC to increase production. On trade, there was broad agreement to press ahead with the Doha Development Round. We called on all parties to take the measures necessary to get the round moving forward. The benefits are clear: substantially reducing trade barriers could boost global incomes by 500 billion dollars a year, with most going to developing countries.
	"On non-proliferation, we adopted an action plan building on and enhancing the existing global non-proliferation regime. We recognised the need to strengthen controls on the transfer of nuclear enrichment and reprocessing technology. We agreed to have new measures in place before next year's summit.
	"The G8 was originally created to discuss economic issues. Of course we still do this but, increasingly, the focus has moved towards issues of international solidarity. This is because it is clear that in an interdependent world, what blights or enhances one part of the world affects the other parts too. It is morally right that we extend democracy, cut poverty, remove the causes of conflict and instability and bring the hope of advancement to all nations. But it is also now clearly in our enlightened self-interest.
	"If global terrorism and the proliferation of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons are the new security threat that we face, we recognise that it cannot be defeated by security measures alone. Political freedom and rising prosperity as much as force of arms will be our ultimate shield. The G8 this year recognised this reality. We look forward to deepening it under British chairmanship next year".
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating this Statement. In doing so, can I also thank the Prime Minister for attending the funeral of President Reagan last weekend? This was a very moving occasion in which the world recalled a great American and a great world leader. Is not the very fact that President Putin is now a part of the G8 process a reflection of the giant contribution to world peace and freedom of Ronald Reagan and my noble friend Lady Thatcher, in leading the free world to victory in the Cold War?
	Themes of liberty, freedom and vigilance against threat were foremost in our minds this last weekend, both in view of the Sea Island summit and elections here at home. We have been critical of aspects of the planning of the aftermath of the Gulf War, but our position is clear. We believe that the Prime Minister was right to align government and country behind President Bush in the war against terror. Indeed, it is clear that the names of Bush and Blair will be as inextricably linked down the years as Reagan and Thatcher.
	The Statement describes the kind of people arrayed against us and against Iraqi freedom—and we are right to oppose them. So may I ask for an assurance from the noble Baroness that, whatever Liberal Democrats may do to Labour councillors in Newcastle, her view is that the Government must stay the course in Iraq? Does she agree that, after the debacle of Spanish withdrawal, it is vital that the enemies of a peaceful and stable Iraq get the message that this Government and this Prime Minister will not waver?
	Of course, I welcome wholeheartedly the unanimous vote on UN Resolution 1546 endorsing an interim Iraqi Government and setting out a timetable for future progress. The challenge is to translate that into progress on the ground. If the new government are to be, and be seen to be, sovereign, what does that mean for decisions on the use of troops? Clarity in this area is essential.
	Last month the Prime Minister said that, while operational control of our troops in Iraq after 30 June must remain with British commanders, political control over their deployment will be a matter for the Iraqi Government. Is that still the position for us and for US forces too? Can the noble Baroness tell the House of any further international contributions now expected to share the burden in Iraq? In particular, are there any prospects of other UN members, including Arab states, agreeing to provide troops? What is the latest position in respect of NATO and, in particular, its role in the training of troops?
	We are told that President Chirac liked the American food, but his views on NATO assistance to Iraq were less digestible. Would not training for Iraqis from other NATO countries be greatly helpful to our forces and to the Iraqi Government?
	The G8 pledged to "work together" on cancellation of Iraqi debt. How is this work to be taken forward in light of the differences between the United States and France on the matter? Furthermore, when there are elections in Iraq, have the Government considered, in the light of the experience of the past few days, whether will they be all-postal elections or whether we will argue for a fully verifiable secret ballot?
	We welcome the constructive discussion of the still grave situation in the Middle East. We also support strengthening of co-operation on global counter-terrorism, with a focus on the security of international travel, though we hope that a balance will be struck between the need to confront terrorism by all legitimate means and the vital personal liberties of the law-abiding.
	We also support steps agreed against proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. What progress can the noble Baroness therefore report in the case of North Korea? On Iran, the G8 said it deplored Iranian behaviour on nuclear weapons and urged it to comply with its commitments. The UK, through the Straw initiative, has laid great emphasis on the closeness of its links with the Government of Iran. So what are the Government doing to persuade the Government of Iran to do what is required of nuclear powers—to co-operate fully with the International Atomic Energy Agency?
	We very much welcome the resolutions on combating polio and on HIV. But can we on this side urge more resolute action on two other tragic problems concerning Africa? First, in respect of the disaster in Darfur, I express our horror at recent developments and welcome the extra £15 million in UK assistance announced last week. But if government bombing occurs in Darfur, could the Security Council not authorise a no-fly zone to protect civilians? Are we pressing urgent consultations on this?
	Finally, can the noble Baroness say—and this has been a special area of responsibility for her—what discussions took place at the G8 on the issue of Zimbabwe? Was I alone in finding it bizarre that, in a Statement devoting so much time to Africa, Zimbabwe was not even mentioned?
	The last time that the noble Baroness answered questions in this House, her line was ineffective in the face of Mugabe's growing catalogue of humanitarian atrocities. She said that she would check the following points. What is the latest number of refugees from Mugabe's tyranny now seeking sanctuary in Botswana, Mozambique and other neighbouring countries? How is it that the sanctions in place do not prevent the visit to Britain of Gideon Gono, the Governor of the Zimbabwe Reserve Bank? Does that not illustrate a need for urgent tightening of EU sanctions to include, in the words of the Movement for Democratic Change,
	"all individuals who play a leading role in perpetuating the illegitimate rule of Mugabe"?
	If the International Cricket Conference can withdraw Test status from Zimbabwe, surely the British Government and the G8 can bar the door to Mugabe's henchmen. In her response, will the Minister say whether she might ask the Prime Minister to make sure that this subject will be on the agenda at the EU summit in Dublin? That will give us another subject to debate when we deal with the Statement on that next week.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I thank the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement. I also offer these Benches' personal condolences to Mrs Reagan and her family on the death of the 40th president of the United States. We would have expected the Prime Minister to attend the celebrations of a great man's passing and are glad that he did so.
	My first question is about the Iraqi situation. Given that it is of crucial importance that the coalition partners mean exactly what they say about the return of sovereignty to Iraq, can the Minister say whether the new Iraqi Government were consulted in any way about the proposal that NATO might become the successor to the coalition in Iraq? It seems to these Benches to be crucial that Iraq should have been consulted but there has been no clear statement one way or the other on the matter. Can the noble Baroness also confirm whether it is now absolutely clear that political control over military actions that affect the people of Iraq will be an issue of consultation with the new government? The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, asked a similar question.
	Turning to the question of the greater Middle East initiative, which was a substantial part of the outcome of the G8 summit, first, was any consideration given to the current membership of the G8? It is interesting that a large part of the time was spent on the Middle East and Africa and yet the G8 continues to be dominated by the western world, with the addition of Russia. China, India and countries from Africa or anywhere else in the developing world, to which so much of the discussion was directed, were not represented. It seems to many of us to be curious that this political anomaly should continue.
	The greater Middle East initiative refers to a partnership with the Middle Eastern states. In that context, can the Minister say what that partnership is meant to constitute? For example, will there be any attempt to bring the Arab nations into a closer relationship with the question of the Middle East, which is regarded as the second crucial issue discussed at the G8 summit? Is there any possibility of involving Arab nations in the discussion of Iraq and of the Middle East? Can she tell us what relationship there is with the Barcelona process, which has been the leading method by which the European Union has tried to discuss our relations with North Africa and the Middle East, which are central to the whole concept of the Middle East initiative? I am concerned that there is a relationship between the Middle East and Japan, a relationship between the Middle East and North Africa and the United States, and a relationship between the Middle East and North Africa and the European Union, but there appear to be three separate initiatives that are not, so far, clearly brought together.
	Turning to the Israeli/Middle East conflict, I express profound disappointment from these Benches on what has been the reiteration of a continual theme. I do not hold Her Majesty's Government primarily responsible. I am well aware of the tremendous efforts that have been made by the Minister and her colleague on the Bench beside her. But we have now heard over and over again about the so-called,
	"common vision of two states, Israel and a viable, democratic, sovereign and contiguous Palestine, living side by side in peace and security",
	as stated in the Declaration on the Middle East. Every single time this statement has been made—it has been made in one form or another at at least the past three summits—the Palestinian territory becomes less and less viable. I must express my profound disappointment and that of these Benches that once again no reference whatever is made to the continuing spread of settlements; to the wall, which now goes deeply into the West Bank; or to the possibility of withdrawal from the West Bank. That is what really matters for a viable Palestine, not just withdrawal from Gaza which, frankly, could not add viability to any country at any time as it is largely what is sometimes known as a "basket case", with 60 per cent of its people unemployed.
	It is crucial that G8 summits address this issue. It is the cancer of the Middle East and nothing will be resolved unless it is resolved. I am well aware that Her Majesty's Government have made huge efforts but I must express profound disappointment that once again the G8 has reiterated the same tired old formula. It is not altogether surprising that so many people no longer believe in the words of G8 summits because so often they seem to mean so little in practice.
	In that context, I must say that on Africa the continuing support of the HIPC initiative for another two years is not a great step forward. It might be described as the minimum to keep that initiative going. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has continually pushed out and expressed ambitions for much more effective dealing with African debt. In some cases, African debt should clearly be written off. He has again and again brought forward initiatives. Rather sadly, one must say that so far the G8 does not seem to have mobilised behind those initiatives. This is a minimal proposal.
	On the issue of peacekeepers, they have been mentioned at the previous three summits. Yet we now face a disaster in Darfur, which may almost equal what happened in Rwanda, and so far no peacekeepers have been available and none has been sent. If we are to train more peacekeepers, can the Leader of the House tell us what steps we will take now to try to deal with the unfolding tragedy of Sudan? The attention of this Government, and many other Governments, has been drawn to this time and again by Members of the Bishops' Benches, the Cross Benches, the Opposition and, indeed, by Members of the governing party. Some day we may turn around and ask ourselves why those peacekeepers were not ready at the time when they were desperately needed.
	In that context, a scorched earth policy is clearly emerging in Sudan. Members of this House may have heard the discussion this morning on the "Today" programme. A witness to what is going on clearly indicated the scale of the disaster there and very strongly indicated the probable involvement of the Government of Sudan. I do not want to say that we know that that is so but we do know that the Government of Sudan could stop it if they chose to do so, at least in the localities where these terrible mutilations and sacrifices are happening. Can the Leader of the House comment on that issue?
	Finally, the G8 summit rightly refers to the issue of ending export subsidies in trade, which is probably the single greatest thing that can be done to help Africa. The Leader of the House understands the African economic situation very well indeed. At the summit two years ago, it was suggested that export subsidies would be withdrawn within the following year. One year ago, that was reiterated. To the best of my knowledge, export subsidies continue, both from the EU and from the United States. Does the Leader of the House agree that if we are seriously to help Africa with regard to AIDS and economic development, at a minimum the G8 summit must mean exactly what it says and export subsidies should be withdrawn by no later than the time of the next G8 summit?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, for their comments. I shall try to address the points that have been made. On the first point of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, about seeking an assurance from the Government about staying the course on Iraq, I think that this Government have shown their absolute determination. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister and other members of the Government have made it absolutely clear that we intend to stick with the Iraqi people.
	On the issue of sovereignty and political control, which was also raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, it will be a sovereign Iraqi Government and political control will rest with them. We have made that absolutely clear. Indeed, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister confirmed that only this afternoon when making the Statement in another place. Noble Lords will know that troop activity is being dealt with through an exchange of letters. There has already been some discussion of that matter.
	As regards NATO, the issue here is not as explained by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams. It is not a matter of NATO being a successor to the coalition. There has been discussion about the possibility of NATO engaging in training of the new Iraqi army on the basis of requests from the new Iraqi Government. I do not see any problem with that, but clearly that would be a matter for discussion between the new Iraqi Government and NATO members.
	The issue of Iraqi debt will be resolved through the Paris Club. I refer to differences with respect to the percentage of debt to be written off, rather than the principle of debt write off. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, regarding his comment about elections and postal ballots, nice try! Clearly, it will be for the Iraqi Government and the UN to determine the best method in that regard. The noble Lord will not draw me on that point.
	As regards North Korea, six-party talks are ongoing although they are somewhat slow. Noble Lords will know that the EU and a number of EU Foreign Ministers, including my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary, have been involved in discussions with Iran and have taken centre stage in them. IAEA meetings are ongoing today and tomorrow.
	We are the second largest donor to Darfur. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has said that we shall look into the possibility of a no-fly zone. I shall, of course, report to the House the outcome of any discussions on that.
	As regards Zimbabwe and the refugee issue, I sent a letter on 26 May, which I put in the Library of the House, which makes clear that the Botswana Government issued a press statement on 22 April in which it made reference to the number of Zimbabweans in Botswana. The statement said that in 2002, 26,214 Zimbabweans had been involved in criminal activities in Botswana, and as of 25 March 2004, some 681 Zimbabweans were held in Botswana prisons. The statement also said that between 1 January and 25 March 2004, 8,394 illegal Zimbabwean immigrants had been repatriated to Zimbabwe. However, we have no way of clarifying those figures. The Secretary-General of the Commonwealth spoke about the number of Zimbabwean refugees in Botswana and Mozambique in October 2003 and put the figure at some 400,000 in Botswana and 200,000 in Mozambique.
	The Governor of the Zimbabwe Reserve Bank is not on the EU banned list. Noble Lords know that that list was expanded to include those at the heart of the Mugabe regime, but the Governor of the Reserve Bank is not on that list.
	I rather think that the decision that was taken that Zimbabwe could not participate in Test series related to its inability to play cricket at the highest levels, rather than to anything else, due to an internal dispute with its cricketing authority.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, referred to the membership of the G8. The noble Baroness will know that a number of outreach events have occurred; two at this summit and others at other summits. This is a meeting involving the richest countries in the world. Discussions have occurred about whether or not the G8 should be extended. Obviously, the extension from the G7 to the G8 was one aspect of that. As with discussions about the UN Security Council and whether that should be extended, noble Lords will understand that these are difficult and sensitive ongoing discussions. However, for the time being, we have to accept that the G8 involves the richest countries in the world. The outreach events are an important element of that.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, referred to Israel and the Middle East. I found the noble Baroness's comments somewhat negative, particularly in view of the progress that has been made recently. The noble Baroness is normally extremely fair in addressing these issues. I do not think we can say often enough that we seek a two-state solution. There are still many who do not even agree that that is something for which we should aim. It is important that we restate that commitment.
	A UN Security Council resolution has condemned what happened in Raffa. That is very important indeed. There was no veto of that resolution on the part of the United States. The Quartet has come up with a number of practical measures that need to be taken forward. I refer to the issue of security for Palestine. The noble Baroness will know that we have played a very important part in that regard. A World Bank trust fund for Palestine has been established. Progress is being made. It is not as fast as some of us would wish, but we all know that when dealing with peace processes one can take steps forward, steps back and sometimes one has to go sideways. However, the important thing is that the G8 has made the statement. There has been activity in the UN and elsewhere, and we need to concentrate on that.
	I turn to the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries initiative and to trade. The write off of 70 billion dollars of debt, and the potential for the write off of another 30 billion, with the addition of 10 further countries to the HIPC initiative, is very important indeed. Again, I found the noble Baroness's tone on that matter somewhat negative. I cannot agree more with the noble Baroness regarding trade. We need to see an end to export subsidies. We have worked tirelessly to achieve that. The G8 has called for decisions to be made by July with respect to the framework for continuing WTO negotiations. We need to continue on that path.

Lord Blaker: My Lords, I note that the noble Baroness did not say why the Governor of the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe is not on the banned list. That is surprising considering that he is well known to be more important than most members of the Zimbabwe Cabinet.
	Did the G8 leaders, possibly at the lunch they had with six leading African statesmen, urge the African leaders to speak out against Mr Mugabe's recent announcement that all arable land in Zimbabwe is to be nationalised with all the terrible consequences that will have for the Zimbabwe economy, which is already in a terminal state, and the bad effect that it will have on the economies of the neighbouring countries? If they expressed those wishes, and urged the African leaders to speak out accordingly, what was the response of the African leaders, and if they did not do so, why not?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Lord will know, because I have said it many times from this Dispatch Box, as has my noble friend Lady Symons, that we have had ongoing discussions on Zimbabwe with our African partners, including with a number of the leaders represented at the G8 meeting. I believe that on the previous occasion that I answered a Question on Zimbabwe I made it absolutely clear why I considered that African leaders felt able to make very strong comments in private but not in public; namely, because of the history of Zimbabwe, the perceptions of their people with regard to the role of the British Government in that, and the fact that UK governments historically have been seen as supporting white farmers and a grab for land—that is how it has been described to me by Africans—and not supporting the black population of Zimbabwe when it needed to have its land back.

Lord Prior: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware of the deep resentment of the United States and Britain that still exists, not so much regarding their part in the war but its aftermath? Will she impress on her colleagues the importance of not believing that a western-style democracy will come quickly to the Arab world or is necessarily the right answer to the problems that the Arabs face? If we try to do too much to press that, there will be an even greater reaction and greater resentment among people who are very proud and independent?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord heard what was said in the Statement, which is that the G8 made it absolutely clear that it wants to support the reform agenda of those in the Middle East. It is not a matter of us seeking to impose anything, but very much one of supporting the reform activity being undertaken in the Middle East by those countries and leaders who are moving in that direction.

Higher Education Bill

Further consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
	Schedule 5 [The Director of Fair Access to Higher Education: supplementary provisions]:

Lord Rix: moved Amendment No. 26:
	Page 31, line 29, at end insert—
	"( ) The Director shall report on the equity and effectiveness of the schemes of financial assistance provided by institutions under section 31(4)(b), and the Director may make recommendations on a national scheme of financial assistance."

Lord Rix: My Lords, Amendment No. 26 is a probing amendment affecting Schedule 5 to the Bill. Unfortunately the Minister is not in her place, but I am sure that she is well aware of all that I shall say—and here she comes. At the risk of some repetition I again declare my non-pecuniary interest as chancellor of the University of East London, as I return to the subject of the Government's proposals for bursary schemes.
	"Oh, no", I can hear some of your Lordships sighing, "he's playing his one-string fiddle yet again". Well, so I am, because the last line of my amendment calls on the Director of Fair Access to make recommendations on a national scheme of financial assistance for students. "Why harp on the subject?" I sense the Minister thinking—she is now in her place. I have now added a harp to my fiddle. Those of us who are cautious about the Government's plans believe that a Bill designed to produce variable fees will end up producing variable bursaries. Universities which have relatively few poor students will end up either paying out significantly more than the £300 minimum bursary to their students or paying bursaries to students who would not qualify for a bursary in other universities.
	We fear a situation where, say, two hypothetical twins, in identical financial situations, go to study in different universities and receive markedly different bursaries. A further education college offering degree programmes from a number of different universities could have to administer different bursary arrangements from all its different universities. As an extension of my hypothesis, that could lead to two identical twins, in identical financial circumstances, studying at the same institution, but again receiving markedly different bursaries.
	However, this is where I cease playing my out of tune one string fiddle and battered old harp and bring my string quartet to the party. My amendment is not solely about a national bursary scheme that some have suggested could be a voluntary coalition, although I hesitate to use that term, but is about the equity and effectiveness of financial assistance to students right across the board. Furthermore, it places the responsibility firmly on the shoulders of the Director of Fair Access to live up to his title and ensure that the Secretary of State has a full and comprehensive report in front of him on an annual basis. That report should detail not only how the director has performed his functions during the previous year, but how all the varied and various grants and loans which are intended to ease the burden on struggling students are working out and how, in turn, they are affecting the universities themselves. The Secretary of State will then be able to act effectively and speedily to correct any imperfections upon which, quite rightly, the director has reported.
	On the other hand, the director could also report that the Government's schemes of financial support for students were a raging success, with the universities full to overflowing, generating wider participation—and everything in the quadrangle would be lovely. I should then be likened to Cassandra, with my prophecies never being believed. That is the beauty of my amendment. If I am wrong, no harm can be done by it; each year the Director of Fair Access would write his or her report and devote a couple of paragraphs saying, in effect, that barmy old octogenarian Lord Rix was barking up the wrong tree yet again. However, if those of us who are concerned are correct, Parliament would receive notice of that in the quickest possible time and could then put matters right.
	I trust that the Minister will not yet consider me a barmy old octogenarian and will give due and sympathetic consideration to my amendment. I beg to move.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the only problem about the amendment relates to the recommendation for a national scheme. I have a letter from the vice-chancellor of Exeter University, which other noble Lords may have received, pointing out that he felt that it was extremely important that bursaries should be tailored by universities themselves to their needs and their circumstances. A national scheme could not allow for that.

Lord Rix: My Lords, I wonder whether I may respond to that question?

Noble Lords: No.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Rix, has produced a rather good solution to this problem. There is a basic inequity in that those universities that have relatively few students from lower income groups will have plenty of money to disburse in bursaries, whereas those such as the University of East London, of which the noble Lord is chancellor, or London South Bank University, will have a major problem, because 60 to 70 per cent of their students come from low income families, and therefore bursaries will hang heavily around those universities' necks.
	We have had much debate on this matter, both at Second Reading and in Committee, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, who is not in her place, has been greatly concerned. The noble Lord, Lord Rix, is, as I understand it, parrying the issue for the moment. He wishes to place it firmly on the plate of the Director for Fair Access to see how well the bursary schemes will be run by the separate institutions—which answers the question posed by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy. But if, after two or three years, the schemes turn out to be inequitable, then some other scheme might be proposed by the Director of Fair Access. The amendment seems to be a good solution to this problem and I congratulate and support the noble Lord, Lord Rix.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Rix, that I was not in my place when he began, although he will not mind me saying that I had the benefit of reading what he was going to say earlier today, when we met. So I understand his argument and "a barmy old octogenarian" is the last phrase that I would use to describe the noble Lord—far from it.
	We had an interesting debate in Committee and I understand the concerns raised by the noble Lord. As the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, has said, the amendment would not itself bring in a national bursary scheme. It would place a duty on the director to report on the equity and effectiveness of bursary schemes provided by institutions and would empower him to make recommendations about a national scheme.
	I assure the noble Lord and your Lordships' House that there is no need to legislate to allow this to happen. The Secretary of State's letter of guidance to the director asks that his annual report should contain a brief survey of access agreements, the methods that institutions are using to improve outreach and typical practice on bursaries and financial support.
	There is also the independent three-year review, which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State described in his statement of 26 January. That made clear that the director would also be involved in the review. Bursaries will be key to safeguarding access and therefore their impact across the piece will be a key feature of that three-year review.
	The director should, and I am sure will, report on the effectiveness of bursary schemes both at individual institution level and nationally and make recommendations based on his analysis. These recommendations could include a recommendation about a national bursary scheme if that were where the analysis pointed. However, I do not agree that this needs to be enshrined in primary legislation; guidance is the place for it.
	I hope that on that basis, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Rix: My Lords, I am delighted with the Minister's response from the Dispatch Box and I thank her and her department for it.
	I am sure the vice-chancellors whom I know—they have doubts about whether the scheme is as effective as the national bursary scheme—will also be delighted by the response. The fact that the scheme can be examined and decided on in the future is a major step forward and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Perry of Southwark: moved Amendment No. 27:
	Page 31, line 36, at end insert—
	"( ) The Director shall take account of views expressed in Parliament in response to his report under this paragraph."

Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, I shall not detain the House. When I tabled a similar amendment in Committee, the Minister replied that there would definitely be parliamentary scrutiny. I would like her merely to repeat that so that it can be on the record. I beg to move.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, for raising the matter. As I said in Committee, I have no doubt that Parliament will take a great interest in the director's work. His annual report will be laid before Parliament and Parliament, through the relevant Select Committee, may decide to scrutinise it further.
	We have previously discussed Parliament and one voice. Unfortunately, the amendment does not alter the problem I indicated in Committee. However, I recognise the noble Baroness's concern to ensure that Parliament will scrutinise the report. I discussed that with the chairman of the Select Committee, who said he would be keen to ensure that his committee takes a keen interest in these reports. Knowing Mr Barry Sheerman, I am sure that will be the case.
	I hope that on the basis of that reassurance, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply and I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 30 [General duties of relevant authority]:

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: moved Amendment No. 28:
	Page 14, line 11, after "to" insert "full-time or part-time"

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 36. There has been much discussion in our debates about part-timers. The core issue is that the Bill makes no provision for them and is concerned wholly and entirely with the 60 per cent of students who sign on as full-time students.
	Many of us in this Chamber who have taken up the interests of part-timers are concerned on a number of scores. First, we are concerned about equity. We have often pointed out that the fees for part-timers have been unregulated for some time. However, that does not take away from the fact that part-timers have for a long time been badly treated.
	We accept that the Government have already done more for part-time students than previous governments, but they are still much less well treated than full-time students. Furthermore—and this is the central issue today—the Bill widens the gap rather than helps to fill it. Under the Bill, full-time students will be given facilities which enable them, at generous rates, to repay fees after graduation on the basis of loans with zero-real interest rates. No such facilities are being offered to part-time students who will still have to pay their fees up-front.
	In addition, the Government, to their credit, are re-introducing maintenance grants for full-time students based on their parents' income—or, for mature students, based on household income. While they have increased the grant available to part-time students to £575 a year, and made a one-off £250 grant available towards the cost of books and travel, for which I am grateful, the means-test for part-time students is much tougher than for full-time students. Pro rata, the grant is on a much lower scale than for the equivalent full-time student. On the ground, therefore, of straight equity, part-time students are getting a very raw deal.
	My second concern is that the Government are ignoring the way the world is going on part-time students. Again, this picks up on debates we had previously in the Chamber. In these days of mass higher education, widening participation, life-long learning and portfolio careers, we are already seeing an increase in the number of people seeking to improve their skills by studying part-time. And that has been growing and is likely to continue to grow.
	In particular, we should recognise that widening participation is likely to pull in many who, given the choice, would prefer to earn and learn at the same time, rather than to run up vast debts on living costs, and to pay for that from their current earnings while devoting evenings and weekends—and, if they are lucky, time off from work—to studying. This is indeed the agenda of the vocational foundation degree, seen by the Government as the main instrument for expanding numbers in higher education. It is therefore fundamentally wrong that this relatively rare Bill on higher education—we will not see another for two or three years—makes no mention of part-time students. Like the White Paper, it ignores part-time students. It is absurd that the Government should be making it harder, not easier, for students to pursue part-time courses and be skewing the stakes yet once more in favour of the full-time 18 to 21 year-olds.
	Thirdly, the Government are confronted by a real dilemma. The package they have put together to finance higher education—that is, fees and maintenance grants for low-income full-timers—is expensive. We have pointed out many a time how expensive the package is and how they will ultimately spend more than they are pulling in in fees. However, time and again they tell us that it is the only way in which they can bring in more money for higher education. We have a little dispute about that, but I will accept it for the moment. It is an expensive package.
	In the process, the Government have exhausted their credit with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The cost of providing for large numbers of part-time students are substantial and as yet unknown. They are unknown because remarkably little research has been undertaken into who the part-time students are and whether they need or would take up extra help if it were available. We have been told that HEFCE has put in hand a survey and that we must wait three years for its completion before anything can be done about part-timers.
	That is unacceptable. I have tabled the amendment to try to help the Government in their dilemma. Our proposal remains firm to the principle that the Bill should provide for part-timers. Amendment No. 28 seeks to add powers to the Director of Fair Access so that in Clause 30(1)(a) not only must he,
	"promote and safeguard fair access to higher education",
	but it will be his duty to,
	"promote and safeguard fair access to full-time or part-time higher education".
	Likewise, we are proposing to add the words "full-time or part-time" to paragraph (b) of Clause 31(2) so that it reads,
	"the promotion of equality of opportunity in connection with access to full-time or part-time higher education".
	In other words, both the director of OFFA and the plans relating to access which the higher education institutions must draw up need to take account of access to part-time higher education. That says nothing about spending money now. The Office for Fair Access will not come into effect for another two years. Only in two years' time—in 2006—shall we begin to see fees introduced. We are saying that during 2007—the director will have a year in which to start work—he will have to consider the issue of part-time students, along with full-time students, when the plans are presented to him, and he will have to say to the universities, "What are you doing about part-time students?".
	I recognise that ultimately the question is: is there any money? It will be for HEFCE to answer that question, but I can say only that that will be another comprehensive spending review down the road. Let us hope that we can see some more money for part-time students in the next comprehensive spending review. However, at least this amendment would put the issue of part-timers on to the face of the Bill and, as with the previous amendment pursued by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, it would give the director a responsibility to remind the Government, time and again, that they must do something about it. I beg to move.

Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I have tabled two amendments on this subject. The first—Amendment No. 54—is an amendment to Clause 38, which concerns the interpretation of Part 3, and it complements the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp; in other words, it would bring the whole range of part-time education within the ambit of the Bill. As the noble Baroness said, it would have the value of ensuring that part-time education was one of the responsibilities of the director of OFFA, and therefore it could, as it has in the past, form part of universities' programmes to widen access.
	My second amendment—Amendment No. 55—differs slightly from that. It would not bring part-time education within the ambit of OFFA but it would provide the same support facilities for part-time students as are available for full-time students. All institutions which have part-time students would benefit from both amendments, but the two institutions which would benefit most from my second amendment are Birkbeck College, which is part of London University, and the Open University.
	As has already been said, those two institutions are seriously and adversely affected by the Bill because, whereas other universities will have an opportunity to increase their funding automatically through their access programmes being accepted by the director of OFFA, Birkbeck College and the Open University are not covered in that way. They feel that it would be disastrous for them to increase their fees pro rata without some assistance either to the institutions or to the students so that, if the fees were increased, the students would have some financial support.
	The amendment which relates to Birkbeck and the Open University would ensure that grants and loans for part-time student courses were brought, pro rata, within the full ambit of the student financial support regime in the same way as financial support is available for full-time courses. That would allow part-time students with an income of less than £15,000 per annum to receive a loan to pay their fees, and that would be repayable only when their income exceeded £15,000 per annum at the end of the course.
	At a previous stage of the Bill, we discussed to some extent the nature of part-time students. It was pointed out that perhaps some of the wealthier students were studying part-time at some institutions. The amendment would ensure that students in real financial need had the same support as full-time students. Taking Birkbeck as an example, it would make a difference of £5 million to its income if the college were able to charge the full £3,000 fee. But Birkbeck feels that if it does not receive any support, the market will not stand it increasing its fees to the level of £3,000. At present, the college receives in the region of £5 million from fees. If it increased the fees, its income in 2006 would be £9.4 million, and that would make a tremendous difference to what Birkbeck could achieve.
	In previous discussions, the Minister said that the assumption is that the market will not stand part-time fees being raised. But we have no evidence to substantiate that. Have any of the institutions carried out research on the matter? I have to say that Birkbeck College has not carried out any such research, but its assumption is backed up by the assumption of my own university, 25 per cent of whose students are part-time, and it, too, is of the opinion that its fee is fixed at a rate that the market will currently support.
	Nevertheless, Birkbeck quotes the Open University, which has carried out a specialised market analysis through an organisation call Planning Business, using a methodology called the Van Westendorp Price Sensitivity Measure, which measures the percentage change in the number of students. It states that raising the fee by 1 per cent would bring about an enormous decrease in student numbers. A £3,000 a year increase would mean that the university would retain about 10 per cent of its current number of students. That would make an enormous difference to the Open University and to Birkbeck College. Neither organisation would be a viable institution if it was to meet with such a drastic reduction in student numbers and consequent loss of income from student fees. So, it is a crucial issue which needs to be addressed.
	The Government, through my two amendments, have a choice. They can bring the whole of part-time education within the full ambit of the Bill or they can isolate the financial support for students by providing this additional support for part-time students. There is a price to this. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, mentioned that it would appear that there is no more money in the government coffers to support part-time students in this way. If HEFCE did decide to do this it would be at the expense of other universities and would be taken from the support they are being given. If that is so and the Minister has no solution to the problems, I support what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp; that is, that we must have a fundamental review of the entire part-time system very soon. We cannot wait for the full review, which HEFCE is undertaking by 2006, to make a difference to the position not only of these two institutions but of all universities which have a substantial number of part-time students. We want immediate action.
	I would ask the Minister if she could at least commit the Government to provide for a review of the whole position, financial and otherwise, of part-time students to take place this year, to be completed by the end of the year and for a report to be presented early in 2005. Unless we can do something with that amount of urgency and along those lines, the whole position of part-time students in all our higher education institutions is under threat.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, very briefly, the noble Baroness said that the Open University has carried out recent research. To my knowledge, from my involvement over a long time with the university, it has put an enormous amount of money into market research. I have heard it said that it spends more on market research than all the rest of the university sector put together. Because of that, Open University courses are very closely tailored to its market. Now the Bill alters the market totally. As a result, the Open University must either receive more money from the Government or put up its fees to match what is required in the Bill.
	As the noble Baroness said, if it does that, it will have to multiply by three its average undergraduate fee and will lose nine-tenths of its undergraduate population. That would be lethal. The Government are threatening the very life of the university they created, which is shocking. I hope that the noble Baroness will do something about this. Just to say that the funding council should top slice its funding to other universities in order to help the Open University and Birkbeck, which is probably in very much the same position, is no good. Universities UK oppose that and I agree. Something quite different has to be done, and promptly. The Open University is now at stake. I hope that the Minister realises that.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I support all four of the amendments because I feel that we really do have to return to this issue of discrimination against part-time students and part-time higher education institutions. I will, perhaps, draw rather more on the Open University. The case has been made as far as it is concerned, but it would have been even better if made by the Chancellor of the OU, my noble friend Lady Boothroyd. It was clear from her outstanding contribution at Second Reading and afterwards how she feels about it. However, I am afraid that you will have to hear from only a former vice-chairman of the OU—I declare an interest there—which is very much the second eleven.
	I have two specific points to make: first, to stress a real unfairness in the treatment of part-time higher education students and institutions, and secondly to emphasise the distorting effect of the Bill on the whole higher education system and on student choice. As the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, said, the central mischief is that the whole of the Bill is directed exclusively at the full-time sector. Those institutions which teach part-time students will receive nothing for their labours—not one penny. That is particularly the case, as I said, with the Open University, which is and has been for so long the jewel in the crown of part-time higher education. Unlike every other university except Birkbeck, the OU has no full-time provision to make good this particular blow.
	To understand the problems facing the Open University we need to turn to the students. From the beginning of the OU, it has been the route to a degree for very many from poor backgrounds with few if any qualifications. They could never have made their way into conventional universities. Many students too are late entries—no doubt we shall turn to that a little later— and have come to realise the benefit to be gained from a degree later in life.
	By now I think that your Lordships are clear that all OU students pay fees and have done so from the foundation of the OU; which, as we have heard, are carefully set by the OU at the maximum which students are likely to be able to afford. So, why should they now be discriminated against? It is argued that as a considerable number of part-time students are in jobs, they do not need the same support and access to loans that undergraduates straight from school are to receive under the Bill. Where is the sense in that? Certainly, very few of those OU students who are in employment are earning high salaries. More than half have a personal income of less than £25,000 and only just over one in 10 have their fees paid by an employer.
	The argument that the OU could match the full-time sector by tripling its fees over three years is manifestly absurd. It becomes doubly absurd when the Bill is framed in such a way as to exclude these students from additional hardship grants and from the very real privileges of deferred fee payments. If the OU was inside instead of outside the world as redefined by the Bill it would benefit by £48 million in the first three years of top-up fees. Why on earth not? It really is counter intuitive for the Government to make it more difficult and comparatively more expensive for those who wish to or can only study part-time. It is not good enough to say that it can all be considered again when the new system has settled down—a point made by other noble Lords.
	Government money, as we know, is always a scarce commodity. There has to be a short-term response, which will enable the OU to invest in growth and pay its staff just like the rest of the sector. That will require the Government to make a direct intervention, and frankly, they have to do so now.
	Like others, I call upon the Minister today to give such an undertaking. Unless that is done and both lots of students are treated from the beginning on the same pro-rata basis, the part-time student and part-time world class institutions such as the OU are unlikely ever to catch up. If the Government fail to rectify the glaring anomaly in the Bill, they threaten to hamstring the one institution capable of delivering the outcomes to which they are so publicly committed. I hope the Government can, even at this late stage, be persuaded to think again.

Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: My Lords, I support the spirit in which Amendment No. 28 has been moved, although I believe it is unnecessary. OFFA has a remit over applications, not admissions, so it deals with potential rather than actual students. It will work generally to widen participation. With that approach it is as likely that potential students will be encouraged to apply for part-time as for full-time courses.
	As your Lordships know, my aim during the passage of the Bill has been to ensure that OFFA has no remit over the composition of the student body. That is why I tabled amendments in Committee ensuring that admissions were outside OFFA's remit. The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, in Committee and brought back at this stage with improvements by the Government will also clarify that OFFA cannot punish an institution if an agreed plan does not alter the composition of the student body.
	If OFFA's role is only to encourage applications from under-represented groups, and it has no powers over which courses they actually take, I do not think there would be any need to differentiate between full and part-time students. It does not need to do so and I believe therefore that the amendment is unnecessary.
	Having said that, institutions have always been free under the proposed legislation to include part-time students in their plans if they wish, and I think many will. But I do not believe that OFFA should be able to require them to do so. That would be a step too far, which I hope the Government will resist.
	However, I want to comment briefly on the amendment of my noble friend Lady Lockwood. A very wide consensus has been expressed, not only in this debate but in previous debates in the House, that there must be a movement towards greater equity of treatment for part-time students. The real question is how to achieve it.
	The part-time student body, particularly among mature students, is diverse. Although there is evidence available for individual institutions, there is no sector-wide picture of the circumstances of part-time students. At present, there is not even an agreed consistent definition that is applied to part-time students. We therefore—and I echo the views of noble Lords who have also made this point—need a serious study, which goes beyond the problems, clear though they are, that face the OU and Birkbeck on the implications of the Higher Education Bill for part-time students and their institutions, including income yield to the latter. The effects of the Higher Education Bill upon part-time course provision and upon those institutions which have been particularly successful in providing more flexible forms of study really must be examined.
	I have argued, therefore, with others that we need evidence to ensure that we target the available resources accurately, so that the really poor part-time students are supported in the right way. I have argued that that evidence does not exist at present. I welcome the Government's decision to include part-time students in the student income and expenditure survey. In recognising the wide consensus on this issue and, indeed, the need for institutions to be able to advise students well before 2006 on what fees they will be charged, I hope that my noble friend will be able to tell us what speedy action can be taken.
	My final point is that this will cost money. It is clear that little is available. My fear is that if the amendment is passed, the Government will look to pay for it, as other noble Lords have mentioned, out of funding already earmarked for higher education. We know that the spending review settlement for the next three years averages only 4.4 per cent. That is not enough to meet the needs already identified in the spending review. Many will argue, and have argued, that it is up to the Government to find more money. I fear that that is na-ve. I do not feel able to support the amendment without an assurance that new money will be found to make it a reality and that it will not be found from existing resources.

Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, it is often said that Ministers are well served if they have eyes in the back of their head. If this Minister had eyes in the back of her head she would see that I was wearing the tie of the Open University. Perhaps I am not its only member in this House but I am a very proud member.
	The Minister will recall two or three years ago when we had the great privilege of welcoming the Queen's Speech that I wore a special tie. It was the tie of the Royal Marines. In view of the past few days my job tonight is to strengthen ties between the Government and the part-time sector.
	All is not lost. We are almost at the last knockings. I make no threat to the Government about support or otherwise for the amendment, except to say that the Minister could earn credit with a great many people if—despite the words at the top of her brief, which might say "resist"—she were to say, "I am prepared to take this back and talk to my colleagues".
	The noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, has been mentioned. She has been a great stalwart and has met Ministers and argued the case. I really cannot understand why the Government are so obdurate in this matter. This nexus in the Bill is—in the parlance—part of the doctrine of unexpected consequences. I do not think that the Government or their advisers fully saw the implications of what they were doing.
	I certainly applaud everything the Bill does in respect of what one might call the "orthodox university sector". I appreciate that the Government—the first government for many years—are attempting to tackle it. I understand the situation of youngsters and their parents who are faced possibly with an impost that is not welcome.
	I started my degree in 1970 in the second year of the Open University. I would think that I was typical of those who left school at the age of 14 and always knew they had a degree in them but never had the chance to get it out until the Open University came along. Harold Wilson said that if he were to be remembered for anything, it should be for the Open University. Also involved were Jennie Lee, who served in this House, and Ted Short, the education Minister. I do not make a party point, except to say that of all the political parties, the Labour Party should have more pride in what the Open University stands for.
	Crowther started the thinking about this and defined what the Open University was. He said that it was open to students as well as to many others. On its range of people, in my classes in Enfield there was an 85 year-old lady and uneducated people. We all were inspired by the feeling that we were being treated by the government and the people who taught us that we were worthy of nurturing—and we were nurtured.
	I had the great opportunity to be the first Member of Parliament to be given a degree while he was a Member of Parliament. I am still the only Member of Parliament to get a degree while he was a Member of Parliament. Many have come into the House with a degree; many have left and got a degree. So, we are thinking of a special institution in education, but to my dear friend the Minister we are thinking of a special institution in the annals of the Labour Party and what it did.
	We can ill afford to lose friends. I say that in a kindly way. We need all the friends we can get. Because of the Open University there are millions of people who are the friends of the Government and of government in general. There are millions of other potential students who I think should be taken care of.
	Much of what I want to say has been said very well by others. I take my advice from the Open University, just as Ministers take their advice from civil servants. I am told by the Open University that it cannot raise its fees to £3,000. Even with the proposed part-time grant of £575 per annum such study would not be affordable.
	I was very impressed when the Open University said:
	"Our market research shows that, at the price of £1,500 per part-time course, we would retain less than 10% of our current students".
	In other words, our undergraduate student population in England would shrink from 140,000 to 14,000. Can that be true? I do not know. The Open University has said it, so it will have to prove it. I know from conversations that Ministers doubt whether that could happen.
	Let us suppose that it were true, and that the legislation had a devastating impact on the lifeblood of the Open University. It would be terrible. The Minister and her colleagues should take the opportunity to think again. Over half of Open University students are unemployed or from low or semi-skilled occupational groups—you cannot say that about the orthodox universities. The Minister has a very important job to do.
	I attended a meeting at which the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, in discussing the matter, raised possible solutions. He acknowledged that the Dearing report, a very valuable publication that was the springboard for many of the recent changes to higher education, had not been able to give adequate consideration to the part-time sector. He suggested that his report had perhaps misled government into underestimating the significance of the sector and misunderstanding its needs. The noble Lord then came up with a solution so simple and inexpensive that I cannot understand why the Government are not prepared to accept it to get them off the hook. His "first-aid" solution was to acknowledge that the position of part-time students would be looked at in the review to be undertaken by HEFCE. In the mean time, he said, we ought to move towards assisting them.
	What would it cost? I am told that in 2006, the gap year during which there would be trouble, it would cost £20 million. If that is the cost of the Government's saying to the Open University and the part-time education sector, "We are prepared to recognise your problems; we are prepared to give you that", that is all right. If the arrangement were to continue, after three years the sum would be £58 million per annum, of which £48 million would accrue to the Open University.
	When we talk about the millions and billions involved, we are talking about how the Government can get off the hook and recognise the sagacity and wisdom of the argument. Of the 43 noble Lords who spoke at Second Reading, 19 raised the issue of part-time students. The last thing that I want to do is say that the Government have done nothing to assist part-time students; on the contrary, they have done a range of things. No doubt the Minister will be well briefed to tell us what the Government have done. However, those who manage the Open University tell me and others that that little thing remains to be done.
	I hope that the Minister has been impressed by the width and the all-party nature of attempts to persuade her to change her mind. If she takes away the amendments tonight, she will have an opportunity to return at Third Reading with a solution. But I fear that, if she presses on and resists the amendment, we will become involved in the game of ping-pong. The Bill will be sent to the other end; eventually it may be accepted. I ask this Minister as I ask others: why go through the purgatory of sticking your toes in at the first opportunity in the knowledge that eventually they will have to change their mind? This is a time when statesmanship is required; I look to my noble friend on the Front Bench to demonstrate it.

Lord Sheldon: My Lords, I have much pleasure in following the speech of my noble friend Lord Graham, much of which I agreed with. I was astonished that the Bill contained nothing about part-time students. I thought that perhaps I had missed the relevant words. In a whole world of universities and further education, I was astonished that there was such a gap in this important area.
	The noble Lord, Lord Barnett, who is absent because of a serious accident, received part-time evening education and training as an accountant. In my engineering days I took eight years of classes, studying for national certificates of one kind and another, which led to university degrees, all during the evening. The whole point of part-time education is that it involves learning while one works. Full-time education is an alternative to working; part-time education is a combination of the two. It allows one to use one's learning in a working environment. Sometimes that can be very helpful. I was able to design a tractional horse-powered electric motor, a matter of considerable technical expertise, because of the work that I did in my student days. That is the sort of thing that happens; one should give it maximum encouragement.
	Technical colleges started with George Birkbeck, who helped to introduce the London Mechanics Institute, from which the three institutions that I had the privilege of attending followed: Stockport College; Burnley Mechanics Institute, which became Burnley College; and the Royal Technical College, Salford, where I got my external degree. All those developments followed on from the understanding that a gap existed for those unable to go to university, in the days when it was a great privilege to do so. Even today, many people have the enthusiasm and commitment to study or train in the evening. Their commitment is great; one does not give up one's evenings or one's days to do such work unless one is fully committed. We should not be placing such students at a disadvantage; there should be positive support for them. I find it astonishing that we have an education Bill that gives no support to such people.
	There must be some understanding and appreciation of the role of part-time education; it must find its way into the Bill. There must be a means of giving such students fair access, and the institutions must be encouraged in their work for part-time students. They must not be under any disadvantage in giving whatever assistance they can to such people. I look forward to a substantial rethink by my noble friend on those important matters.

Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I support the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, to which my noble friend Lord Forsyth has added his name. I shall speak also to the rest of the amendments in the group.
	This has been a well versed subject; it is a concern of noble Lords on all sides of the House. Amendments Nos. 28 and 36, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, aim to reverse the current situation in the Bill so that the contents of plans submitted to OFFA must include provisions for the promotion of equality of opportunity in connection with access to higher education for full-time and part-time students. That would enable the director not only to see the effects of the new system in a holistic manner, but also to encourage higher education institutes to manage their full-time and part-time students regarding widening access on the same basis.
	The Minister assured the House:
	"There is much that we have to offer the Open University in the passage of this Bill".—[Official Report, 19/4/04; col. 15.]
	It is astonishing that at this stage of the Bill we have not yet seen any sign of the wonderful offer that the Bill can make to such students. As I have said before, the Government cannot impose top-up fees on higher education institutes that cater for full-time students without giving special consideration to the treatment of part-time students.
	The Government have suggested that institutions such as the Open University should raise their fees to stay apace of those charged by the rest of the higher education sector. However, it has been made clear that such steps, without the safety nets that the Government are putting in place for full-time students, would damage the ability to attract and retain the very students whom the Government argue they want to encourage. Not only that, but part-time, higher education institutions may also end up losing staff to the better-endowed institutions, resulting in a decline of part-time students as a whole. It is clear that the part-time student sector is being "let down by Labour" by its failure to address these issues in this one-sided Bill.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I will briefly add my voice to those who have spoken, particularly for the Open University. I have an indirect interest, in that my wife got a first-class honours degree in English from the Open University while raising our family. I suspect that a great many women in particular are in that position. I do not want to say more than that it provides what I call passionate education. The contact that I had with the group that my wife was part of opened my eyes to the extraordinary commitment that late-life undergraduates bring to their studies, and with it the rich experience of their own lives. In the end, most of them contribute to the commonweal in a fulsome way that more than repays any financial provision that the state gives them through the Open University.
	I will also make the obvious point that Open University degree courses reach the parts that the others, on the whole, do not reach. If the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, is even half right in what she said about the potential consequences of this Bill unless something is done to it, we should all take to the streets, because it would be vandalism, to use an overblown but justified word.

Lord Rix: My Lords, I spent more than a few moments yesterday morning in the boiling hot sunshine crouched over my word processor to make notes on Amendments Nos. 28, 36 and 55, because my name is attached to them. However, as a result of the impassioned speeches that I have heard from all around the House, I no longer intend to use those notes.
	I had the honour to receive my first honorary degree from the Open University way back some 20 years ago. That was as a result of the co-operation that the Open University had with Mencap at the time. As I said in my Second Reading speech, the Open University was the first university, I think probably in the world, to give credence to people with learning disabilities and their families. As a result, three courses have emanated from the Open University over the years, and they will continue to do so in the future. My support for the Open University is totally and absolutely wholehearted. I support everything that was said by the noble Lord, Lord Graham, in his wonderful speech.
	For some inexplicable reason, I find that I may well have added my name to Amendments Nos. 28, 36 and 55, but it seems to be missing from Amendment No. 54. I declare my interest in Amendment No. 54 as well, and I hope that the Minister will give us a satisfactory answer in a few moments.

The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, I apologise for not being in my place at the start of this short debate. I was fully aware of those who are involved in this group of amendments, and I shall be brief. We can all rehearse our own experiences, and rightly so. I was chaplain at Manchester University, which started life as Owen's College. Before it had its charter in 1880, it was a part-time place. On Sunday week, I shall be ordaining 14 priests, the largest number that we have had in the diocese for many years, if not ever, since its founding in 1927. Nearly all of them will have done a part-time course. As the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, said, the motivation is high.
	These amendments will not only provide a signal—and legislation needs signals—but will ensure a proper provision for what I, and many others, regard as a growth area and as a fact of modern life. We have heard the eloquent speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Graham—I am sorry that I cannot wear a Marines tie, although I saw some of them beating the retreat in Caen at the D-Day celebrations recently. I fear that the Minister will tell us that we are doing this already, or that there are legal difficulties, or that there is not enough money. In anticipation of those three points, none of them will do. These amendments are important, and if we do not pass something like them, in years to come we will regret not having done so.

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, if the great George Birkbeck could hear this debate up in Heaven—and he is in Heaven, I am sure that the right reverend Prelate will agree with me about that—he would be pretty pleased. I hope that when the Minister has spoken, he will also be pleased, and that we are going to see some movement from the Government on this important issue.
	I was not here, unfortunately, when this debate took place in Committee. I will say a few words now in favour of part-time students and part-time places in our universities. It is undoubtedly the case that part-time students who, as George Birkbeck said in 1821, work by day and study by night, are among the most committed, most highly motivated and hardest-working of all of our students. They make huge sacrifices to study, and we ought to recognise that. We also ought to recognise the fantastic work that is done by those institutions that have for many years specialised in supporting part-time students. The teachers in these institutions are immensely committed to helping, supporting and providing the extra pastoral care that sometimes must be given to mature students who come back to study, perhaps not having done any study since leaving school at the age of 16; some 10, 15 or even 20 years earlier.
	Part-time students come cheap; they really do. They come cheap in the sense that they have not been eligible for maintenance support until very recently. I am sorry to be political, but I must dispute something that the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, just said, when she implied that this Government are failing part-time students. We will see whether that is true when we hear what the Minister says. However, previous Conservative governments have failed them far more than this Government, in that this Government have introduced a loan scheme for part-time students, so they are able to take out a loan of up to £500 for maintenance, which was never true before. I know that because I spent 10 years of my life pleading with Tory Secretaries of State to do more to support part-time students and part-time places in our universities.
	Many noble Lords have spoken about the value of part-time higher education. It is important that we do not pass a Bill that neglects to recognise the existence of part-time, higher education, but also that we do not pass a Bill that unintentionally—and I am sure that it would be entirely unintentionally—could lead to a situation in which there is an inbuilt disincentive to higher education institutions to recruit part-time students. Universities undoubtedly cannot charge them £3,000 a year in fees, and therefore the facilities that they can provide for part-time students decline relative to those available for full-time students. Given the nature of part-time students and what we have said about them, that would not be desirable; indeed, it would be a tragedy.
	We have before us two rather different kinds of amendments. We have the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, suggesting that the regulator, OFFA, should be required in the Bill to consider part-time students. I support that, and I hope that my noble friend the Minister is able to as well. I do not think that she is in her place, but I am sad that I must disagree with my noble friend Lady Warwick, who thought that the amendment was unnecessary. Perhaps it is strictly unnecessary, in that of course in principle OFFA will be able to look at part-time as well as full-time places and consider applications for both, but it should be clearly stated that the regulator has a duty to consider both kinds of students. After all, part-time students make up 40 per cent of our student population, and it is an extremely effective way to widen participation, if institutions are to be encouraged to do more on part-time student numbers. So, I disagree with her on that.
	I support what my noble friend said about hoping that the Government would eventually be able to provide additional funding to support part-time student places. However, I do not agree with my noble friend that, were the Government to be unable to do so, all the money should be kept as it is. Were we to be in the undesirable position of having no extra funding, I would like to see some redistribution towards part-time places. There would be widespread agreement in the House, even if not in the sector. However, the sector consists of institutions that have more full-time students than part-time students overall. That does not mean to say that governments and people outside the sector, including your Lordships' House, should not take a different view. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will do so.
	There are two possible routes to go down, with regard to what my noble friend Lady Lockwood said. The first is to provide additional support for part-time students, so that they can pay higher fees. The second is to provide additional support to higher education institutions, not just the OU and Birkbeck but all those that have large numbers of part-time places, so that they can continue to provide proper facilities for those most deserving of all students. The Government should take the second route, and I hope that we will hear from the Minister that the Government and the Higher Education Funding Council for England can do that. Even if we cannot produce an immediate solution because of the complexity of the issues, I hope that it will be possible to find a short-term interim solution to protect those places and protect the institutions that provide them.
	I know that pledges were made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister of State for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education, in particular, I think to my honourable friend the Member for Milton Keynes North East, Brian White. In the light of that, I am extremely confident that my noble friend the Minister will come up with a response that will meet your Lordships' concerns.

Lord Dearing: My Lords, I know of no matter that, during debates on the Bill, has attracted more solid consensus than the need to do something for part-timers. We are a nation committed to the principle of lifelong learning, and we want all people to be able to benefit. I had better declare an interest: I was chairman of the University for Industry and am now its patron. That institution is dedicated to the cause of lifelong learning for everyone.
	The noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, referred to his wife's having done a part-time degree and having done very well. However, many other women, possibly of a similar age, do not live in such a well heeled environment. They need financial support to encourage them to persist with their courageous decision to go back into the world of learning after 10 or 20 years out of learning or work. They have high aspirations, and we must support them. I join all those who have spoken in asking the Government to take action.
	There is a hole in the White Paper of January last year. We were all so transfixed by the issue of variable fees and what it involved—it was breaking new ground—that we forgot that, in concentrating on the full-time, we were creating a problem, a disparity of funding that would affect the OU, Birkbeck and other higher education institutions that have a high proportion of part-timers. There will not be the money to compete for staff, for example. There must be action.
	The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, teased me about the malleability of civil servants. I assure him that someone who has worked for Mr Benn and then switched to working for Sir Keith Joseph has a fairly malleable mind. Malleable or not, I would, if I were writing the Minister's brief, say, "You have got to do something, but, for goodness' sake, be careful, if you do not know what it will cost or where the money will come from". Perhaps, the noble Lord, Lord Burns, would give similar advice.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, does the noble Lord think that it is conceivably possible that officials in the Department for Education and Skills could have forgotten about part-time students in such large numbers? Was it just that the Government did not want to face up to the financial consequences of dealing with the problem?

Lord Dearing: My Lords, as the noble Lord has perceived, I am a man of limited imagination. As one of limited imagination, I must confess that, when I gave a rather lengthy public commentary on the White Paper, I did not focus on the part-time issue.
	There is a hole, and we need two things. We cannot wait long; we need some first aid. Before we get a long-term solution, the matter must be properly researched. We must know how much it will cost and how the money can best be spent. The Minister has already assured us that we do not need legislation to do something, so I hope that she will enlighten us about what the Government have in mind.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, it has been a long and interesting debate. Mindful, as ever, of your Lordships' desire to hear the detail from the Government and to finish Report stage this evening, I shall be as brief as I can. It is a delight to see my noble friend Lord Sheldon taking part in the debate. I am grateful to him. I shall resist the temptation to go through many of the things that I said in Committee.
	This Government have done more than any other to support part-time students. To my noble friend Lady Blackstone, I say that we have introduced a grant from the autumn. To the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, I say that there are no age limits on those grants. We have increased the funding to help part-time students from £18 million in 2003 to £37 million in 2004–05. We hope to more than double the number of students whom we can help. The Government have shown commitment to the matter.
	I am conscious that my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton has told me to be statesmanlike; that my noble friend Lady Blackstone has invoked heaven in the debate; and that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, is going to take to the streets. I recognise the pressure on me from different parts of your Lordships' House. Knowing Lady Phillips, I know that she would have got a first-class degree, whatever she did. She is an extremely able woman.
	There are four amendments in three distinct categories. The first two—Amendments Nos. 28 and 36—are similar and relate to the role of the director and access plans in relation to part-time students. Amendment No. 54, tabled by my noble friend Lady Lockwood, is concerned with regulating part-time fees. Amendment No. 55 is about support for part-time students, and I shall start with it.
	The question that I want to raise is about the rationale behind the amendment. We know that part-time higher education is a vibrant and growing market and that part-time numbers are rising faster than full-time numbers and have done so for several years. As the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, just said, it is critical that, whatever we do, we do it on the basis of evidence. There would have to be a substantial increase in public investment to achieve what Amendment No. 55 would require. That is not to say that we are ruling out changes. Noble Lords have made eloquent statements of the need to consider part-time students, but we need evidence in order to make the changes.
	In the amendment is the assumption that part-time students want loans. We had a loan scheme for part-time students, and take-up was extremely low. That is why we have introduced grants from this autumn. We must think carefully about what we would be doing, if we made the amendment. We did some costings, and we found that it would cost about £0.75 billion. The amendment covers students on 50 per cent-plus courses. If the scheme were to be extended to students on any kind of part-time course, the costs would rise to about £1 billion. Those are big amounts of money. Before we take big, costly decisions, we must be sure that we do so on the basis of the correct evidence. So it is not that I do not think that those matters are important or that a case could not be made, but we do not have the evidence to assess the case.
	The noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, who is not in her place, said that we need to think about that group of students as not being all the same. There are many different categories of students who are studying part-time, which make it a rich and vibrant group. But we need to make sure that we have the evidence.
	So what are we doing? Currently, we are running a survey of part-time students and their financial backgrounds. The contract for that has been awarded to the Open University and we are grateful for its work on the survey. Next year, we will get more information when part-time students are included in the income and expenditure survey, which will also assess their needs in the light of the new grant that they will be receiving by then. Again, we shall have a much greater evidence base.
	We must then decide what we wish to do, which we would be doing on the basis—

Earl Russell: My Lords, I have every sympathy with the noble Baroness in her search for evidence. Perhaps I may ask her to include two things within it; namely, the possibility that for older people an interesting education may result in improvements and therefore saving in health and, for people of child-caring age, excess expansion reduces the space available for child care.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am not sure that I quite understand the noble Earl's second point. But—

Earl Russell: My Lords, the same room cannot be used for child care and lecturing at the same time. So if the college is jam-packed, there is nowhere to look after the children.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the National Childcare Strategy is working precisely to support children and child care in lots of different locations. Of course, we supply support for people who have children, to enable them to take part in education. As I have already said, the question of age and grants available does not apply: the grants are available regardless of age.
	It is critical that we get the information that we need and make the decisions based on that information. On that basis, I would ask that Amendment No. 55 be withdrawn.
	As regards Amendment No. 54, institutions have always been free to determine the level at which to charge for part-time courses. That unregulated market is working well. We have no desire to interfere with it. If we were to regulate part-time fees, we would be imposing new restrictions on institutions where there have never been restrictions before. A cap might be imposed on fees that are less than some institutions currently charge and employers or students currently pay. That would have a dramatic effect on the income of those institutions: some might stop running the courses. Equally, if we set the cap higher, there might be an upward drift in fees charged. We do not believe that that is the right way to go or that we should regulate. I hope that my noble friend will not press her amendment.
	I turn now to institutional funding and the review. Noble Lords have mostly talked about the Open University and Birkbeck, but I think that they are also interested in this issue in more general terms. We are very aware of the concerns that some institutions have expressed—particularly those with a high number of part-time students—about the funding for part-time students in the light of our proposals.
	Last autumn, the Higher Education Funding Council for England consulted the sector about proposed changes to its teaching funding methodology. That consultation, and the responses to it, led to some changes to the way that the funding for part-time students will be calculated for the 2004–05 academic year. I understand that allocations have been announced. For the longer term, HEFCE has commenced a comprehensive review.
	Following debates in your Lordships' House at Second Reading and in Committee, we have had further discussions with HEFCE regarding the scope of its review of the funding methodology. In particular, we have pressed it to ensure that the review is conducted and that proposals are developed as quickly as possible with full consultation with the sector. That consultation needs to take account of the position of those institutions with a strong interest in part-time issues. That does not refer simply to the Open University and Birkbeck, although, of course, they are very important players. We have also asked for an assurance that changes flowing from the review will be implemented at the earliest opportunity.
	I am pleased to say that HEFCE has responded very positively and has confirmed that part-time issues, far from being an add-on to the review, will form an important and integral part of it. Its starting point will be to consider whether in the future it makes sense to continue the full-time/part-time distinction at all and how to develop a better approach that is consistent with more flexible learning.
	HEFCE has also confirmed that its fundamental review, which is now under way, will involve extensive consultation with the sector on the issues that are to be addressed. Its expectation is that in summer 2005, it will be in a position to consult on the principles of the new system with a view to finalising proposals for a new model in early 2006, which would be before the introduction of variable fees. Those recommendations can then be implemented in a phased way as soon as the associated financial information systems can be developed.
	Therefore, before variable fees are introduced, universities will know the funding regime and the broad implications for the sector. Of course, that does not address the very specific issue of the implications of variable fees for those institutions with predominantly part-time students. Here again, HEFCE proposes further consultation with the sector on the detail of what will be the transitional arrangements pending the introduction of the new funding method. It has explained that using its current funding formulas, if it did so happen that full-time tuition fees increased at a greater rate than part-time fees, there would be a natural rebalancing of government funds in favour of part-time courses. It has also agreed to consider the special cases that both institutions—the Open University and Birkbeck—have made regarding their funding, with a view to the HEFCE board coming to a decision in the autumn.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. In the consultation by the funding council, perhaps the Minister could ascertain and make sure that consultation is also done with the Scottish funding councils. The Open University exists in Scotland. In fact, it has a higher recruitment per head in Scotland than almost anywhere else in the country. Funding for students of the Open University in Scotland, which will be done through the Scottish funding councils, needs to match that.
	I understand that, currently, a lot of consultation is going on in Scotland and that there is very little interest in the matter of part-time students. The Open University in Scotland exists as well.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I recognise what the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, is saying. In looking across Open University funding, I believe that that would be the case. But I shall confirm that in writing to the noble Baroness with a copy placed in the Library.
	I could talk a great deal about the Open University and Birkbeck, which would echo much of what has been said about them. We have discussed with HEFCE that it should look very carefully at the proposals that have been put forward. I have rather galloped through this, but I hope that as noble Lords look back on what I have said, they will see the timescales involved, which reflect some of the concerns that have been raised. In particular, HEFCE will look at those institutions very carefully. There is no disrespect to either institution if I do not go through a whole set of notes that I have. I hope that noble Lords will take that as read.
	I turn now to Amendments Nos. 26 and 36.

Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, before my noble friend the Minister moves off this issue, can she clarify the timetable again? Will the review be finished in the summer of 2005 and that there will then be consultation with universities?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, there are three different timetables. First, HEFCE will reach a decision by the autumn in respect of the Open University and Birkbeck. Secondly, all the principles behind the reviews will be established by summer 2005. Therefore, institutions will know what is being proposed and will be able to make plans accordingly. The final part of the consultation will be completed with firm plans made by the early part of 2006, which is before variable fees are introduced. I can clarify that further, but I hope that that gives my noble friend what she needs. In a sense, that is the framework, together with the research that we have put in place, which will give us the evidence base. I hope that that is recognition of the fact that we take this issue extremely seriously.
	Amendment No. 28 requires the director to promote and safeguard fair access to full-time and part-time higher education. Amendment No. 36 includes access to part-time higher education as a matter that regulations might require to be included in plans. While the Bill does not rule part-time study into plans, it does not rule it out. For example, within the Bill, it is possible for the Secretary of State to require the director to write a report that relates to part-time provision. Of course, we have also made it clear that institutions can include reference to part-time provision in their plans if they wish.
	The draft guidance from the Secretary of State to the director points out that institutions could use additional income from courses for which they are charging higher fees to attract and support part-time students. So part-timers are not ruled out of access plans, but we wish to keep the details of an access plan for the institution to think about and make decisions on rather than prescribe too much from the centre.
	I am not able to accept Amendment No. 36, but I think that I can offer something on Amendment No. 28. While I cannot accept it as drafted, I can accept the amendment in principle and bring back a government amendment at Third Reading. I have also reflected on a debate that we had earlier today, on Amendment No. 24. Noble Lords know that that is a government amendment following the proposal put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, which would give the director the power to identify and advise on good practice in relation to the promotion of equality of opportunity in access to higher education. Since I believe that many institutions will in fact include in their access plans measures relating to part-time provision, this amendment might be further amended to include specific reference to good practice in respect of part-time as well as full-time students. If noble Lords agree, I will consider whether we can come back at Third Reading with two amendments along the lines I have indicated.
	Within the package, an evidence base is critical and we are working on it, as well as supporting the Open University in that regard. We recognise the importance of the unregulated market for part-time study and the wish to continue in that way. I have made clear the HEFCE position. We accept in principle Amendment No. 28 and we shall bring forward an additional amendment along the lines I have just set out. I hope that, on that basis, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I am immensely grateful to the Minister. This is the solution that we have all been looking for. I sense that the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, may share my feeling that it would have been very nice if we had been able to go that little bit further, but we knew that that would be extremely difficult. As I said when introducing the amendment, we understand that we do not yet really know who these part-time students are. I am delighted to learn that HEFCE is accelerating the pace of its survey. It was extraordinary that it was going to take three years to complete it; one year is fine. As the Minister rightly indicated, we shall see movement, developments and plans in 2006, and we have it on the face of the Bill.
	As the right reverend Prelate pointed out, this is of symbolical importance. It sends a clear signal to the community when a provision is put on the face of the Bill. I take on board the fact that institutions can do as they wish and that perhaps we did not really need the provision—that is the implicit response—but, as I said, it is an important signal to the community. I am delighted.
	I thank all noble Lords who spoke in the debate. It has been very long, but extremely useful. Once again, I thank the Minister for what she has offered in her response. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 29 not moved.]

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: moved Amendment No. 30:
	Page 14, line 12, leave out from "have" to end of line 17 and insert—
	"(i) a duty to protect academic freedom, including the right of institutions to determine the criteria and the application of that criteria for the admission of students, and the selection and appointment of academic staff, (ii) a duty not to require plans to include reference to particular courses of study or research, (including the contents of such courses or programmes and the manner in which they are taught, supervised or assessed) except as provided for in section 23(1)(a) and (b), (iii) a regard to any guidance given to him by the Secretary of State."

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, Amendment No. 30 is tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Perry of Southwark, as well as that of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, and of the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland of Houndwood. I should mention that the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, had an important medical appointment this afternoon and thus was not able to be here, but I know that he strongly supports this amendment, to which he has added his name.
	While we welcome the acceptance by the Government of the amendment tabled in Committee by the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, and the move made by the Minister to recognise the importance of academic freedom—an issue that this House has a long and distinguished history of fighting for—we do not feel that it went far enough in providing all the assurances that are needed.
	This amendment maintains the duty of the director to protect academic freedom, including the right of academic institutions to determine the criteria and the application of that criteria in relation to the admission of students. It adds to that the selection and appointment of staff, which is important given the argument that in some circumstances certain staff attract particular students. The amendment also aims to exclude the director from requiring plans to refer to particular courses of study or research, including how they are assessed.
	Perhaps I can make the case most positively for the amendment by quoting the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, from the debates on the 1992 Act. She said that,
	"The principle of academic freedom is indivisible. It is not possible to anticipate or determine what some future Secretary of State with a particular axe to grind might do about, for example, the kind of students who should or should not be admitted, the kind of academic staff who should or should not be appointed, or about departments which the Secretary of State has taken against and wishes to close. The list of exceptions cannot encompass every possibility and an interfering Secretary of State could always find ways of exploiting loopholes".
	No doubt the Minister will tell me that my amendment is not absolutely spot-on technically, but she will recognise where the wording has come from. In commending the amendment, I hope very much to enlist the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, because she is the inspiration behind the words used. On that basis, I beg to move.

Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: My Lords, I support the amendment, although I have a few minor caveats. However, I am very pleased with its wording. Noble Lords will recall from our debate in Committee that I felt it was important to protect all stages of the admissions process. However, the amendment leaves one area of that procedure vulnerable. One part of the wording inserted by my amendment in Committee meant that admissions decisions are protected by the phrase,
	"and to apply those criteria in particular cases".
	So there are one or two minor drafting points. It is my understanding that requirements are to be determined by regulations, and hence by the Secretary of State rather than OFFA.
	On a minor point, paragraph (ii) refers to provisions set out in "section 23(1)". I wonder whether that should be "section 31(1)"? Perhaps my noble friend on the Front Bench will be able to clarify whether my understanding is correct.
	Those issues aside, I strongly support this proposal. I have been concerned about the risk that OFFA might require institutions to make reference to particular courses of study in their plans. My noble friend has been most reassuring on this point, but the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, would put the matter beyond doubt. I hope that these brief comments can be considered and I repeat my support for the amendment.

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, it is a new experience for me to have inspired a Conservative amendment. I am not sure whether to be flattered by that or slightly nervous about my reputation in the Labour Party. However, I support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, although I cannot comment on its wording. I am not sure whether it will stand up technically, but that is for my noble friend to determine. However, the point he makes in principle should be supported.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, my name is also attached to the amendment. In Committee two different versions of moves to protect academic freedom were on offer, but because the Minister accepted the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, that was the one to be incorporated. However, I did remark to the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, who I think is the author of this amendment, that I had a slight preference for her form of words. I am delighted to see that it has been brought back and I reiterate my endorsement.

Earl Russell: My Lords, I too support the amendment. The key principle behind this is that decisions on the admission of students must be made individually. That cannot be done if one has to produce a statistical tally. We have to be able to decide whether he or she is the best person in front of us. That must be done by consideration of the person's mind.
	I do not think that people always understand exactly what we are doing when selecting students. We are not assessing past performance. In fact, my objection to using A-levels as a way of selecting students is that it is always like betting that the winner of the Derby will be the horse in the lead at Tattenham Corner. I am told by those who know more about these matters than I do that on that principle one would lose a very large sum of money.
	What one is looking for is promise; the ability to develop talent. To achieve that, one needs to get the students thinking about something that they have never come across before; an unfamiliar piece of evidence; a strange idea. One needs to look to see what they do with it. Therefore, the handicap suffered by people from schools which are rather less adequately endowed is that of a smaller library; far fewer things are familiar to them and therefore far more are surprising to them. In some cases the difference has been so extreme that I have been unable to assess candidates except by interviewing them on matters right outside their academic field and on which they could not possibly have been expected to prepare.
	But the word "require" in Amendment No. 29 is, I hope, understood in Amendment No. 30. It is absolutely vital because one cannot carry out this duty according to any conscience but one's own. A colleague of mine resigned from an extremely good job because her superior demanded that she alter the transcription of a word in a manuscript which he had not seen. He may perfectly well have been right, but he could not possibly have known he was right. He had not seen it, she had; he simply did not have the authority to do what he did. For that to be met by a resignation was perfectly right.
	Were I to be still in office—I have now, unfortunately, retired—and were I to be faced with a requirement to select student X in preference to student Y, even if I intended to do so anyway, I would feel bound to resign rather than submit to an order to do it. One cannot delegate one's conscience in that way; one has to make one's own judgment and has to be free to stick to it. Without the guarantee of academic freedom one cannot have that and the wonderful variety of the academic conscience allowed full play.
	I remember listening to and speaking opposite the right honourable gentleman Mr Oliver Letwin when he spoke at the Oxford Union on 26 February. He began his argument from the proposition that the state has failed. When he said that, what he meant was that it had failed as a manager; that the state does not understand how to manage universities. It does not understand how to manage hospitals or schools or railways simply because it does not have expert knowledge of the bodies concerned.
	What he left out, which is also important, is that the state has equally failed in any attempt to hand over to the public the selection of people who are to receive these privileges. There is no way of making a market carry out an equitable allocation according to merit and without reference to money. In fact, to do so without reference to money is to contradict the very nature of the market. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, would not disagree with that.
	My noble friend Lady Sharp, in her Second Reading speech, mentioned figures—to which I do not think the Minister will object—showing that the proportion of people from the lower social classes at Harvard and Yale was less than half what it is at Oxford and Cambridge. So, if the market cannot select and the state cannot manage, you need some kind of combination; you need the state to provide the money for the selection but to keep out of the management. If it does not keep out of the management, you simply cannot do the job. That is why the principle of academic freedom is so vital. If it is not enshrined it will be eroded. The Civil Service, like Hobbes's man, has a perpetual and restless love of power after power that ceases only in death. If we do not go for death—which is a little draconian—let us see whether an Act of Parliament will make a good second best.

The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Earl, Lord Russell, who brings to debates his experiences as a university teacher, which I half-shared in a previous don manqué existence.
	One of the clichés often hurled at modern leadership and government is "control freakery". I come to legislation as a layman. What it is intended to enact is in itself important but, as I said earlier, the signal that it gives out to the wider community is, to me, equally important. The academic community would find the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, welcome, appropriate, right and proper. I hope that it is taken very seriously.

Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, I have little to add to the splendid points that have been made already by other noble Lords. Not only is academic freedom indivisible, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, said in 1992, it is also a very delicate plant. On it rests many of the freedoms on which this country depends. I do not think it is possible to repeat too often in legislation the defence of academic freedom.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, as I have indicated already to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, I cannot accept the amendment as drafted. However, let me begin by stating that we fully appreciate and support the need for the director to respect academic freedom. That is why at Committee stage we accepted the amendment that makes explicit on the face of the Bill that the director must have regard for academic freedom, particularly in respect of the admission of students. I know that is an issue of real concern, as has been indicated in your Lordships' House.
	This amendment seeks to go further and would give the director a duty to protect academic freedom. This is not necessary because, used in this context, the phrase,
	"have regard . . . to the need to protect academic freedom",
	obliges the director to perform his duties with this in mind. Were he demonstrably to fail, he would be open to legal challenge. I am very happy to consider how best we might meet the noble Lord's concern and to spell out—as he has attempted to do—what we mean by "academic freedom".
	I know that my noble friend Lady Warwick has retabled an amendment, which we shall debate in due course, which would preclude the Secretary of State including admissions policies or procedures in the content of plans. As I indicated during the debate in Committee, I am inclined to accept the amendment if the noble Baroness moves it.
	The combined safeguards of these amendments offer a real reassurance on the face of the Bill. So, with the commitment that I shall accept the amendments in principle, I shall work with the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and my noble friend Lady Warwick to agree an amendment which, if you like, encompasses the amendment to the amendment I am going to accept in order to take on board the noble Lord's points. With that explanation, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister. It is always a joy to hear that what is being proposed will be enshrined in the Bill. I look forward to seeing the text. I accept that my precise wording may not be right.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, suggested that we were referring to the wrong paragraphs in the Bill. I believe that they are the right paragraphs because they relate to the powers in respect of the raising of fees. However, I should be happy to follow up the point with her.
	I am very grateful to my noble friends Lady Perry and Lord Sutherland who have worked on this with me. To have the amendment pretty well accepted is a treat. The contribution of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, would in itself have made tabling the amendment worthwhile. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 31 [Contents of plans]:
	[Amendment No. 31 not moved.]
	[Amendment No. 32 had been retabled as Amendment No. 34A.]

Lord Ampthill: I remind the House that if Amendment No. 33 is agreed to, I will be unable to call Amendments Nos. 35, 36 or 37, due to pre-emption.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 33:
	Page 14, line 27, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
	"(1A) In relation to England, a plan under this section— (a) must also include such provisions relating to the promotion of equality of opportunity as are required by regulations to be included in the plan, and (b) may also include further provisions relating to the promotion of equality of opportunity. (1B) In relation to Wales, a plan under this section— (a) must also include such provisions relating to— 10 (i) the promotion of equality of opportunity, or (ii) the promotion of higher education, as are required by regulations to be included in the plan, and (b) may also include further provisions relating to either of those matters."

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, as I made clear in Committee, it has always been our intention that plans in England should be concerned with fair access and not with the promotion of higher education more generally. I recognise the value of placing a restriction on the face of the Bill which reflects that intention. I have therefore laid Amendment No. 33, and consequential Amendments Nos. 38, 39, 41 and 44 to ensure that the term "promotion of higher education" does not apply to English plans.
	Amendment No. 33 makes it explicit in the Bill that English plans must include provisions that relate to the promotion of equality of opportunity in connection with access to higher education. That will ensure that the promotion of higher education applies only to Welsh access plans. As noble Lords will know, the National Assembly has yet to determine whether to introduce variable fees and, if so, how it will do so. It is appropriate that this legislation should give it the flexibility to determine policies suited to Welsh circumstances, following the precedent set by other post-devolution Bills.
	I hope that noble Lords will understand the need to allow for devolution to operate in this context, and will support these government amendments. I beg to move.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 33, Amendment No. 34:
	Line 10, leave out "or" and insert "and".

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, when we discussed Clause 30 in Committee, I was one of those who was unhappy about the wording of the original clause, which was very similar to that in Amendment No. 33 for Wales. It provided that the duties of the director must include such provisions relating to the promotion of equality of opportunity or the promotion of higher education. I was objecting to the use of "or" rather than "and".
	I have tabled this amendment on behalf of the Royal National Institute of the Blind and of Skill, the body that promotes the interests of students with disabilities. They have come back to me and said that they are still confronted by a problem with Wales. There are disabled students in Wales as much as there are disabled students in England. The two organisations are very concerned that the wording might imply that equality of opportunity was not to be promoted in Wales. It is a little thing, but there is implicitly a conflict as the Bill stands, about which RNIB and Skill are very concerned.
	Having agreed to promote this amendment, I then found that I was stirring up a hornets' nest, because education in Wales is a devolved matter. My party, in particular, is concerned that Wales should be able to do its own thing and should not be dictated to by this Parliament.
	There is another issue arising, which the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, will talk about. If we leave the wording as it is, there is an implicit contradiction and a difficulty for disability groups. It ought to be considered, but it gets swept up into the wider area. Therefore, I shall leave what I have to say at that. I beg to move.

Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: My Lords, it is known that I have not been inclined to support government Amendment No. 33. I do not think that it goes far enough. With respect to Wales, it leaves in place a power which I firmly believe is unacceptably wide.
	Vice-chancellors in Wales have no idea what the Welsh Assembly intends its regulator to do. There have been no discussions with institutions in Wales. It seems clear that the priority will not be access.
	Would we in England accept the creation of a regulator with the power to fine institutions up to half a million pounds—the whole of their grant—without knowing what the regulator will regulate? We certainly would not.
	I have reconsidered my position in the light of the House's decision on Amendment No. 23. That amendment was grouped with Amendment No. 34A. In my view, it would be disastrous if Amendment No. 34A were passed, for two clear reasons. First, as I said when I spoke to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, I do not believe that the package of amendments will be acceptable in another place. The ability to amend the Bill constructively could well be lost. I am very concerned that there will be no opportunity at all to remove the words,
	"the promotion of higher education",
	with respect to Wales as well as to England.
	My amendment to remove admissions from plans would also be lost, as I understand it. My admissions amendment, the second of a pair which was moved and accepted by the Government, prevents OFFA requiring plans to contain reference to admissions. It is a vital amendment, which I think the House felt very strongly about. I failed to move it in Committee, sadly, for which I apologise, but I very much hope that it will be passed this evening. This is too high a price to pay for an amendment that will not remain after another place has considered the Bill.
	To avoid such an outcome, I intend to support government Amendment No. 33. Welcome though it is—and it is very welcome that the Minister has accepted the arguments we have made in relation to England—the amendment does not go far enough, and I intend to bring this issue back at Third Reading.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, and with the leave of the House, I am a little confused. Is she saying that the Welsh universities which belong to Universities UK are complaining that the Assembly has not discussed this properly with them, and that they are worried about it? Is that the case, despite the fact that the noble Baroness supports the government amendment? I believe that the House has a certain responsibility when we legislate not just to do what the Assembly says it wants but to pay attention to the people who are affected. I wonder whether we should be accepting the amendment.

Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I can clarify my intention. There has been no discussion about the intention of the Welsh Assembly as regards the regulator. It simply wants to take on what we regard as a very wide power, which is of great concern to the institutions in Wales. I am anxious that we have an opportunity to ensure that the provision is removed for England, and I intend to come back with an amendment to remove it for Wales on Third Reading.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, there has indeed been considerable concern expressed in Wales about Clause 31. I am not sure that government Amendment No. 33, which I am happy to welcome on behalf of England, has not exacerbated rather than ameliorated the situation in Wales.
	I have a letter from the secretary of Higher Education Wales, which comprises the 14 vice-chancellors and principals of higher education institutions. The letter sums up the situation very succinctly. Mr D G Lewis writes:
	"If enacted, the clause will allow the Welsh Funding Council (as the body likely to be designated by the National Assembly) to use the power to require an Institution's plan to 'promote higher education' in ways not directly connected with fair access to higher education".
	He then goes on to quote from a debate on 17 May, when the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton of Upholland, said:
	"I am clear that higher education institutions are autonomous bodies, and the provisions in Clause 31 are in no way intended to undermine that long-established principle".—[Official Report, 17/5/04; col. 631.]
	Mr Lewis continues:
	"However, in Wales there has been no discussion with HEW, and some of its members are deeply concerned that this power will be used, for example, to direct their business plans and even to force mergers. This is not a permissive power—it is a restrictive one. Some members of HEW fear that the power is there to ensure that institutions comply with the Minister's wishes, and to fine them if they do not".
	Of course, the Government now propose to remove the power to promote higher education in England from OFFA, but to retain it in Wales at the insistence, we are told, of the Welsh Assembly government for that relevant authority in Wales—which is likely to be the Higher Education Funding Council. So there would seem to be a direct link between funding and the promotion of higher education.
	There is not much doubt in my mind why this difference is proposed between England and Wales in Amendment No. 33, and Higher Education Wales appears to agree with me. What is at the bottom of all this is the amalgamation of institutions. That has been discussed in Wales over the past year. The University of Wales College of Medicine, of which I am president, approached Cardiff University, and voluntarily and successfully negotiated a merger that will benefit both institutions. The combined institutions will become a separate University of Cardiff. The new university will still have a close relationship with the rest of Wales. The necessary legislation to effect these changes is currently proceeding through Parliament.
	At least two other amalgamations have been proposed—between the University of Wales, Bangor and the North East Wales Institute of Higher Education and between the University of Glamorgan and the University of Wales Institute, Cardiff. Both proposals have made no headway for one reason or another. I strongly suspect that what the Assembly has in mind is to force the amalgamations through in the name of promoting higher education.
	I will not go into the pros and cons of such mergers, but I wonder whether it is appropriate for the Assembly government to lean on the parties concerned and force them to merge when they have sought to do so and failed, for the time being at any rate, to find enough common ground to warrant amalgamation. I may be wrong that the desire to merge institutions lies behind the Assembly government's insistence on the retention of the promotional element in the contents and plans. I would be grateful if the Minister would correct me, and in the course of correction, tell us what the Assembly government do have in mind. It is glaring that what has been withdrawn from England voluntarily by the Government is insisted on for Wales. Surely, the same principle should apply.
	The promotion of higher education sounds a high enough ambition, but, like liberty, it is possible to commit many crimes in its name, I am sure. The proposed new Section (1B)(a)(ii) is causing deep concern in academic circles in Wales and will be deeply unpopular. The Assembly Government have botched the health service in Wales and it looks as if they are well on their way to botching higher education as well. I therefore have every possible sympathy with Amendment No. 35 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, and that sympathy may extend to a similar amendment at Third Reading. However, I also welcome the Government's amendment in so far as it refers to England. However, I beg the Government to answer, why grant to England a blessing that is being denied to Wales?

Lord Morris of Aberavon: My Lords, there is a difference between what is proposed for Wales and what is proposed for England. I declare an interest as Chancellor of the University of Glamorgan. I have watched very carefully and actively from the sidelines the immense effort that has gone into achieving an amalgamation that has not come to fruition despite the views of many people such as the funding council and so forth. I would like to know—and this is the principle with which I approach all legislation affecting Wales—whether this difference is at the behest of the Welsh Assembly, or not. That would help me and my deliberations.

Earl Russell: My Lords, I have a couple of questions. The first relates to proposed new Section (1A) of Amendment No. 33, which states:
	"a plan under this section . . . must also include such provisions relating to the promotion of equality of opportunity as are required by regulations to be included in the plan".
	Such proposals,
	"as are required by regulations to be included in the plan",
	are a pig in a poke. "Must" is draconian. A draconian pig in a poke is a zoological curiosity of the first water. It is one that I view with considerable suspicion. I wonder in particular whether the draconian quality of "must" is capable of overriding the vital and very welcome concessions that the Minister made in the course of our debate on Amendment No. 30. I would like to hear it spelt out that that was not the case.
	My other question relates to "and" or "or". The basic skill of Opposition has been described as the ability to see all hell in a grain of sand. My noble friend Lady Sharp has exercised that ability to perfection. In general, obviously, greater equality of opportunity would be likely to lead to the improvement of higher education because it draws on a wider pool of talent. The chance of selecting the best people is improved. However, if it were to interfere with the right of individual judgment, on which I was speaking on Amendment No. 30, that would cease to be the case.
	For example, if we use "and" instead of "or", quotas are not ruled out. If we use "or" instead of "and" quotas are ruled out. "Or" allows a particularly vital judgment of the merits of the student to be made irrespective of any social consideration whatever. It directs people to look for merit in students from social classes not hitherto adequately represented, which I am sure most of us do already, and which I am sure all of us will do even harder if this Bill becomes law. That I welcome. However, when we get to the draconian prescriptions involved in the use of the "and/or" dichotomy, I feel that an authority is being claimed that should not be there, and I hope it goes out.

Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I shall say a few words in support of the second part of Amendment No. 33 on the understanding that this part of the clause has emanated from the Welsh Assembly. My noble friend made that clear in her introduction.
	Of course I am aware of the concerns expressed by Higher Education Wales; those concerns have been voiced in this Chamber this evening. I also note the letter from the chairman of Higher Education Wales and his statement that there has been no discussion with HEW. In spite of those worries, I believe that it is hardly for this House to oppose a clause initiated by the Welsh Assembly when it is also acceptable to the UK Government. However, I readily accept that there is a problem here.
	It was always envisaged in the White Papers that the Welsh Assembly would have the opportunity to influence primary legislation affecting Wales. However, I recognise that we did not foresee the problems that would arise. The problem has been identified by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, in the commission considering the powers of the Assembly, and this evening we are in a situation that he described well in his report. The difficulty is this: the clause has been initiated by the Welsh Assembly but the initiators are not present to explain their policies in the forum that scrutinises and legislates. That is a fundamental flaw in the devolution model and will have to be addressed.
	I hope that the Minister can say something to allay the fears of those noble Lords who have expressed concerns, but I would find it difficult for the House to oppose a clause that has emanated from a representative body in Wales and is supported by the UK Government.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, I welcome the government amendment. The Minister has done much to reassure the House by introducing it. I contemplated voting against it and supporting the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, but I am delighted that she has decided not to press it tonight.
	I act on the basis that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. The problem with Wales arises because of devolution. It seems to me that the Welsh Assembly would like the proposed phrase to be kept in because it wishes to use OFFA to do something that the Government have assured us that OFFA will not be used to do—to pursue wider issues, namely the economic ones. I do not want to venture into the merits of integration of different departments or institutions, as did my noble friend Lord Roberts, who spelt that out very clearly. That is clearly a matter for the Welsh Assembly. But it is also a matter for the Government and for this House, that legislation introduced on one basis should be used for another purpose when we have been specifically assured by the Government that that will not be the case.
	The Minister has been extremely helpful and positive throughout the consideration of the Bill, and I recognise that she is between a rock and a hard place, because she cannot tell the Welsh Assembly what to do. We shall accept the government amendments and come back to the matter at a later stage. That is probably the best position to be in, for it gives the people in Wales time to reflect on what they are doing and the Minister time to extricate herself from between the rock and the hard place.
	I support the government amendments and support the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, in her decision not to press her amendment to a Division. However, I put the Minister on notice that the issue is not off the agenda; it is clearly there, for the reasons that I have given.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I should say to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, that I am not clear where we got to with her amendment, so perhaps she and I should have a conversation about it at the end of this stage of the Bill to ensure that the issues that she raised are covered.
	The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked whether "must" overrides the duty not to interfere with academic freedom. Not at all—I can be very clear on that.
	The noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, made some very important points, as ever. I do not have the specific answers, as I am sure he will not be surprised to hear, but I shall endeavour to get responses to his questions between now and Third Reading so that he can make his decisions on the basis of that information.
	The noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, and the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, were both concerned that the Welsh Assembly had put the amendments forward. That is right; it was the Assembly that asked specifically for this differential. As the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, rightly said, that is the nature of devolution.
	I hope that my noble friend Lady Warwick will be reassured that the membership of the group led by Professor Rees considering the future includes representatives of Higher Education Wales, which represents the interests of the sector. As I said before, there is no question of the Assembly passing regulations under this clause without due consideration. It has a duty to consult and propose subordinate legislation with significant cost.
	There are different issues in Wales, which the National Assembly, as a democratically elected body with responsibility for higher education, wishes to put forward. Between now and Third Reading, I am sure that there will be the opportunity to discuss these issues and to get the kind of responses that the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, in particular, wanted. I have been put on notice by the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, with the support of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth.

Earl Russell: My Lords, can the Minister say something on the question of "and" or "or"?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: Not easily, my Lords. We had some of these debates in Committee, and it is probably better, if the House and the noble Earl will permit it, that I write to him on that matter. I would take too much of the House's time at this point.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her response. I get the impression that she was quite sympathetic to my little "and" instead of an "or". We need to discuss the matter further. The amendment has clearly stirred up a hornets' nest in devolution terms, and we shall return to it on Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment No. 34, as an amendment to Amendment No. 33, by leave, withdrawn.
	On Question, Amendment No. 33 agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 34A not moved.]
	[Amendments Nos. 35 to 37 not moved.]

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendments Nos. 38 and 39:
	Page 14, line 36, leave out "subsection (2)" and insert "subsection (1A) or (1B)"
	Page 14, line 38, leave out "subsection (2)" and insert "subsection (1A) or (1B)"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I beg to move that consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving the Motion I suggest that the Report stage begin again not before twenty minutes to nine o'clock.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Government Communications

Lord Wakeham: rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what action they propose to take following the independent review of government communications.
	My Lords, I ought to declare an interest as for a number of years I was the Minister responsible for the co-ordination and development of government policy and, as such, had some ministerial responsibility for the Government Information Service. In addition, as I suspect most noble Lords will know, I was the chairman of the Press Complaints Commission for seven and half years.
	My Question has in a way been answered by the Leader of the House in her Written Statement of 19 January. I found that answer unsatisfactory and I am grateful for this opportunity to raise some of those concerns. Any government information service has the difficult task of serving the Government of the day, but not serving the political party in power, and to do this with all impartiality and integrity. That is the Civil Service tradition. This is sometimes irritating to Ministers—it was to me from time to time—but it is essential.
	The Government Information Service, in serving the government of the day impartially and with integrity, comes in for a great deal of criticism, which is misplaced. It has a negative as well as a positive job to do: stopping Ministers acting outside the rules and conventions; for example, issuing party political press notices through the government machine or spending public money on publicity, not to inform people about their rights and obligations arising from government actions, but for party political advantage. This is why Parliament should look critically at the Government's emergence as the second largest advertiser, at something approaching £200 million per year.
	The report refers to a three-way failure in the breakdown in trust between the Government and politicians, the media and the general public. I do not accept this. It was due to a failure by this Government and their special advisers to maintain that proper balance, and to the outcry at the excess of spin, that Phillis committee was set up in the first place. The Moore affair was only one of many examples, but this is not the time or place to rehearse the press management of the past seven years for one could perhaps go on all night.
	However, whatever the problems that caused the setting up of the Phillis committee, I doubt very much whether its report is the answer. A lot of the report is unexceptional, and some of it is welcome, but I fear motherhood and apple pie come to mind for much of it. It is the central conclusions of the report that need challenging.
	I am in favour of the presentation of issues being taken into account at an earlier stage in policy development, but in my opinion, this is best done by strong communications people in departments and not by a centrally controlled press machine.
	The report is somewhat sparing about the lobby, and quite simply wrong to advocate only on the record briefing. The fact is that the lobby is not, and should not be, a creature of government. It is an association of journalists for journalists. There will always be a lobby or association of journalists working at Westminster, whatever it is called, and it will continue to meet. The existence of the lobby will always be of greater help to those representing smaller news outlets than to those representing the larger ones. How the Government react to the lobby is a matter for them but I suspect they will find it much to their benefit to continue to use it. Indeed, in my view, a certain amount of unattributable briefing is essential to get a proper understanding of policy. On the record briefings are likely always to be far too cautious. The larger organs will always be treated somewhat differently by the Government and will get their favoured briefings whatever the Phillis report says.
	Phillis's attachment to on the record briefing is, I fear, politically correct nonsense. The prime rule should be that governments should have on the record press briefings or press conferences when they have something to say or they should, through unattributable twice-daily briefings of the lobby, give journalists an opportunity to seek reaction on the events of the day. It is interesting that, in putting the No. 10 spokesman on the record at lobby briefings, this Government have insisted on not identifying the spokesman by name and the media have acquiesced with that. It is even more interesting that the broadcasters have not insisted on being able to record the briefings with microphones and cameras. I wonder why. But I am clear that no civil servant or political adviser paid by the public purse should do twice-a-day briefings that are fully on the record and broadcast and remain a civil servant or in receipt of public remuneration. Such briefings should be done by a Minister.
	But here we come up against a constitutional point. Parliament would rightly soon object, or should rightly object, to this usurping of its constitutional role of holding the executive to account. I am all in favour of on the record briefings where there is something to say, but they should be given by Ministers and they should mostly be given by Ministers to Parliament.
	However, the most serious aspect of this report is the constitutional one. It is an acknowledgement that this Government's centralising tendencies are acceptable, and so undermine our traditional constitutional position. Under our system of Cabinet government, the Prime Minister is primus inter pares and power is spread among members of the Cabinet. It is not for No. 10 to usurp the proper role and position of members of the Cabinet, which would be the result of a centrally controlled press machine. Individual Ministers are responsible for their own departments' policies, actions and staff, and the staff owe their first allegiance to their Minister, and not to the Prime Minister, the No. 10 Press Secretary, the Director of Communications or whatever he is called.
	The report's endorsement of its earlier conclusion for a strong central communications structure takes centralisation as desirable and a move to a more presidential style of government as acceptable. It is, I fear, another illustration of the Phillis report's alarming ignorance of the constitutional position in our parliamentary democracy. I for one would not accept this Phillis theory of centralisation if I was a Minister and member of the Cabinet and I am surprised that members of Mr Blair's Cabinet are prepared to do so. Perhaps they are not. I have my doubts whether Gordon Brown has bought into it.
	I suspect that the Phillis theory of centralised communications stems from what the committee would describe as a rational analysis of the purpose of government communications: the need for a single, consistent government voice. But British government is not, and never has been, about selling soap flakes or popcorn. It is about a Cabinet system of collective decision-making and parliamentary accountability. That is inevitably a less tidy and controlled system than the centralisers would like. But that is what our constitution is about: the dispersal of power, not its centralisation in the hands of presidential Prime Ministers and their obsessive spin doctors.
	It is not my task to blame Bob Phillis and his colleagues who gave their time to serve on the committee. Indeed, on this occasion I warmly congratulate him on the knighthood that he was awarded in the recent honours list. He is a very distinguished man and does a very good job well, even if I do not think much of his report. My purpose was to point out a serious manifestation of the undermining of our constitutional arrangements in this country and a weakening of Cabinet government and parliamentary democracy that started in 1997 and is doing great damage. That is the real mischief of the Phillis report.

Lord McNally: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, for his initiative in putting this matter on the Order Paper. As he rightly says, he has form on these matters and therefore his comments are to be taken seriously. I thought that we might perhaps have a love-in about the Phillis report but, from what he said, that will clearly not be the case. I take a more positive view of its recommendations. I take on board what is said about the over-centralising nature of No. 10, but a reading of the report suggests that other aspects of Phillis counteract that.
	It is not my habit to quote Daily Telegraph editorials, but today's editorial talks of the public being alienated by,
	"the bossy, spin-ridden politics of the past decade".
	Phillis talks of,
	"the breakdown in the level of public trust, and credibility of, government communications and the disengagement from the political process".
	Where I start to depart from the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, is that I do not think the fault lies entirely with the Government—a great deal lies with the Government but the media have motes in their own eye so far as this is concerned. Wherever we attribute blame, alienation and mistrust are damaging weaknesses for a democracy that must be addressed.
	Lord Phillis—I am giving him even more honours—rather, Sir Bob Phillis answers one of the tests of a good servant to a government. As the noble Lord, Lord Young, was reputed by Mrs Thatcher to come up with solutions and not just with problems, there are solutions in the Phillis report that deserve better consideration.
	Spin did not begin with new Labour. However, the bruising experience of the 1992 defeat and the lessons learnt, particularly from the Democrats who had themselves learnt the hard way after the Dukakis debacle in the United States, produced an over-aggressive approach to government communications that was also influenced by a mistrust of a Civil Service machine that had been in the hands of the Conservatives for 18 years—a mistrust that I consider was misplaced. However, that lack of confidence, and a desire to deliver the project via a more powerful No. 10 policy unit and a better co-ordinated and "on message" media exercise in joined-up government, was what started all this.
	In retrospect, it is clear that far too much power was given to Alastair Campbell. As he himself has now admitted while "treading the boards" round the country, the carrying into government of the opposition style of press tactics was a mistake. I refer to the abuse of position on the part of special advisers—the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, referred to the Jo Moore case—the collapse in morale in the Government Information Service, and some questionable use of public funds; that is, the Government annual report and the upsurge in government advertising prior to the 2001 election.
	I turn to the Phillis solutions. I believe that there are doubts about the creation of the new post of permanent secretary for government communications. It is slightly odd that, having separated the roles that Campbell occupied of both political and government spin doctor, and in finding someone to reinvigorate the Civil Service side of the act, a former Conservative appointment, Howell James, was selected. It is fair to say that he went through the most rigorous of appointment procedures undertaken by the Civil Service Commission. One must accept its judgment that he was the best man for the job. The job is a tough one. The Phillis report recommends:
	"The new Permanent Secretary should be tasked with forging a new communications function across government pulling together current members of the Government Information and Communications Service and other departmental communications staff into a fully functioning communications operation. At its heart should be the principle that communications are a professional function that is core to the Civil Service".
	I agree with that. There needs to be better training of civil servants in communications, better use of outside expertise and more use, as Phillis mentions, of the practice of both the Foreign Office and the Treasury of bringing civil servants in from other disciplines to give them experience in their news departments. However, that can be done only if it is underpinned by other action. That is the real test of the Government. There must be a Civil Service Act to underpin any strengthening of the role of the Civil Service communications sector.
	There must be a robust implementation of freedom of information. One of the core recommendations of Phillis is that the Government should carry through their commitment to freedom of information. I made my next point to the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, the other day. I wonder whether the Government are embarking on a real programme of training in a new spirit of open government. One of the most damning phrases in the Phillis report is that "the culture of secrecy" is alive and well seven years into this Government's term of office, when they were supposedly elected in 1997 to remove that culture of secrecy.
	I am not as relaxed about the lobby system as the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham. I consider that it is corrupt and corrupting. The sooner it can be removed, the better. I refer to the findings or non-findings of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, regarding the impact of Campbell's aggressive spin on news organisations. However, one point that emerged from the Hutton report which was a real plus was that he showed that government could reveal large amounts of information directly to the public and the media and let people make up their own minds about it.
	Another recommendation of the Phillis report that is worthy of consideration relates to an independent statutory statistical body. CP Scott said:
	"Comment is free but facts are sacred",
	and he was right.
	I still believe in the merit of the special adviser system. It has been well tested. I declare my own special interest in that I served as a special adviser more than a quarter of a century ago. Few mistakes and misjudgments have been made, and most civil servants find that it is a plus to have a political adviser within a department.
	As I say, we must accept that the media have responsibility regarding the damaging failure of trust. People as varied as Martin Kettle of the Guardian, John Lloyd writing yesterday in the Observer, and Professor Steve Barnett have all drawn attention to something that Phillis calls for; namely,
	"a clearer separation of fact from news, comment and entertainment and a greater willingness to admit and to correct mistakes and inaccuracies".
	A parallel recommendation was made by the Puttnam committee, on which I served. Yet certainly most of our popular media, rather than reporting news, initiate predetermined campaigns that distort and preselect news. One has only to consider the u-turn on the European referendum or the treatment of asylum seekers to appreciate how that is exercised.
	I would hope that as well as journalists taking responsibility for higher standards of journalism and the Government resisting any further concentrations of media power—perhaps the test of that will be the fate of the Daily Telegraph—the Prime Minister might recapture some of his old radical spirit. Would it not be radical if, in the next few weeks, he took time to recommit his Government to an effective Freedom of Information Act and give a pledge that a Civil Service Bill will be in the Queen's Speech? I am not as pessimistic as the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, about the recipe proposed in the Phillis report. The Government have a problem of credibility, but, to use a phrase that is popular at the moment, his report provides a road map back to respectability and the Government should take it.

Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, by drawing attention to the Phillis report, my noble friend Lord Wakeham has done the House, and members of the public who notice such things, a service. His experience in government as Leader of both Houses, which is a rare feat, as Chief Whip in another place and his experience since leaving government as chairman of the Press Complaints Commission, give him a special insight into these issues. I take seriously his warning of the dangers to Cabinet government and Parliament's place in our constitution.
	The review committee was chaired by Bob Phillis. I echo the congratulations on his well-earned knighthood in the Birthday Honours. The committee was set up to help to help the Government get out of the mess following the Jo Moore affair—or, if one prefers, the Martin Sixsmith affair, or the DTLR crisis, or whatever one might wish to call it. That was not an isolated, freak affair, it was a particular example of what can go wrong when spin doctors and other special advisers get out of hand.
	Two trends have occurred since my noble friend and I were Ministers—a massive centralisation of power and detailed control by No. 10 and a massive shift from reliance by Ministers on civil servants to reliance on special, that is to say, political, advisers. I am not against special advisers. Like the noble Lord, Lord McNally, I was one myself—in my case, over 30 years ago—but I had no responsibility for media relations and it is not a healthy development that so many special advisers are now appointed primarily with such responsibilities. The report emphasises the reasons for that.
	The centralisation of decision-making—presidential style government—and the enormous numbers and influence of special advisers has led to worse decisions and has damaged trust. One reason for those decisions becoming worse is that presentation has been given too big a role by comparison with the substance of a decision. Like my noble friend, I believe that centralisation has devalued the role of Cabinet Ministers and hence Cabinet government. It has also devalued Parliament.
	I am disappointed that the report, while it contains hints in such a direction, was not more forthright about the desirability of decisions being made known to Parliament first. When I was first involved in such matters, there used to be huge inquiries when there was a so-called leak. But now we take leaks in our stride. There are leaks first thing every morning on the "Today" programme. Even the Budget is leaked to the "Today" programme, which would have been unthinkable a few years ago. As my noble friend said, briefings should normally be made by Ministers and should normally be made to Parliament, not constantly spun in advance. We should try to return to that position in the interests of our constitution. The centralisation of communications is an element in the centralisation of government and my noble friend made some excellent points about the dangers of that.
	The review has to be seen against the wider background. It reviews the issue arising out of a particular example of trust breaking down between the Government, the media and the public. That trust has been damaged many times, before and since and, after all, the electorate has recently demonstrated its view of how much it trusts government. As the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said, the fierceness of media competition is partly to blame, but those organisations respond to government actions. It is the Government that to a large degree provide the ammunition with which the media operate.
	It is important that that trust between government and the public is redeveloped. That should particularly be the case in the event that we found ourselves having to respond to a 9/11-type situation. If the Government cannot be believed about the reasons for going to war, will they be believed in an emergency? Ministers say that they do not wish to talk about threats and what to do about them in case people panic. But the British are not a panicky nation and we want to feel that the various possibilities, which everyone realises exist and which from time to time Ministers confirm exist, have been thought through as much as possible, although we all recognise that no-one can prepare for them completely, and that the responses have been though through.
	However, those matters are not central to this report and I wish to make some particular points. Regarding the role of special advisers, there is a devastating account on page 10 of what has gone wrong. It says:
	"Many of them concentrate their limited time on the political reporter in the 'lobby' and on a handful of specialists. We have been told that this has created an 'inner circle' of reporters who have good access, but a disenfranchised majority who do not. This can leave reporters dealing with a sometimes poorly informed and demoralised press operation. The way some have operated has also led to a blurring of information and comment"—
	a point made by the noble Lord, Lord McNally. That paragraph, in itself, is a key to what has gone wrong and what requires to be put right. I think that special advisers, and particularly those with responsibilities for talking to the media, need to be reined in. Recommendation 7 makes some suggestions. I would have been happier with stronger wording, but the analysis is excellent.
	Next, as my noble friend said, it is a mistake to try to pretend that briefings will all be on the record. That will be a pretence, and I do not believe that it will happen quite like that. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, may not like it but the lobby will exist, formally or informally, and I think that, in general terms, it is much better that it should do so formally. I do not necessarily mean that everything about the system is perfect, but I believe it is better that it exists formally.
	Another part of the report struck me very forcefully—indeed, it shocked me. Recommendation 9.2 on page 25 states:
	"If Ministers choose to use such data"—
	that is, statistical data—
	"in speeches or argument, ahead of publication of the official statistics, they should be under an obligation to release all the relevant data, not just quote selectively from it to make a case".
	What shocked me was the use of the word "if". I do not think that Ministers should use statistical information, which is due to be given out according to clear timetables set out in other recommendations, in speeches or in argument ahead of publication. Like everyone else, they should wait for it to be published. I do not object to Ministers being given advance information of statistics in confidence in a limited area—other recommendations deal with that—so that they are in a position to comment when the statistics are released. Clearly, that is an important part of day-to-day management in government. But I do not think that they should be able to choose to release a statistic in advance if they feel like it, even in the circumstances of Recommendation 9.2.
	Incidentally, the report goes on to state:
	"This would be an equivalent discipline on Ministers to the legislation which requires formal disclosure of material information to the stock market by companies".
	The fact is that, if Ministers came under the same rules as now apply to company directors, their treatment of statistics would have to be very different from what has been the case. From some of the wording, one might also think that that should be so even if that recommendation were carried out. However, I do not believe that Ministers should anticipate the regular issue of statistical services for any purpose.
	Nevertheless, as a whole, we should be grateful for the report, grateful for the analysis that it contains and grateful for many of its recommendations. Like my noble friend, I think that it is wrong in some, potentially damaging, ways but it is also a very useful guide to thought on all these matters. I hope that the Government will respond, but I urge them to treat the recommendations with caution and to study the points made by my noble friend Lord Wakeham.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, on raising this issue. I greatly appreciated the thoughtful way in which he and the other noble Lords involved in this short debate approached the matter. I was particularly charmed by the way in which all noble Lords made it plain that they have form on this issue. I am not sure that I have form—or perhaps, going back to my local government days, I have. I was always accused of being a master of spin in my own locality, so that is on the record too. I also take this opportunity to congratulate Bob Phillis on the occasion of his knighthood in the Birthday Honours List. I believe we all agree that it is well deserved.
	I was intrigued by, and interested in, the comments of all three noble Lords who participated in the discussion. They covered the same area to a large extent, although there were some disagreements. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, took a rather more positive view of the Phillis review and report, and the noble Lords, Lord Wakeham and Lord Cope, said that it was a useful document and a valuable guide to behaviour. I believe we all agree with that.
	This is a helpful opportunity for me to summarise the Government's position with regard to our plans for government communications, and I shall take my time to do just that. It is worth reminding ourselves that communicating with the public is one of the Government's most essential tasks. There have been criticisms about the level of government spend, but we are massive organisationally. We have the ability to make tremendous impact upon public life, on people's happiness, their wealth, sorrow and opportunities. A government who are dedicated to improving the opportunities for all have an important job to do to explain their policies, decisions and actions and to ensure that we have an informed public who understand their rights, responsibilities and liabilities. I doubt whether there is much difference between any of the political parties about that responsibility of government.
	It is hardly a new set of responsibilities. In preparing for this debate I asked my advisers to look at the origins of public information campaigns. I was told that one of the first of those was carried out in 1876 by the Post Office, which in those days was a government department. It was charged at that time with telling the public about government saving schemes, life assurance and annuities. That was one of the first examples they could find of a protracted government information campaign.
	During the 20th century, under the twin influences of conflict and a diversifying news media, the government's means of communicating with the public became more structured. More recently, the public's expectations have changed. They are no longer simply content to be told what the Government have decided; they want to be consulted, listened to and informed about policies and decisions which may in some way affect their lives, their families, those close to them, their communities and what they do. That is an important point.
	I am sure that there would be agreement that successive governments have in their different ways strived for more effective ways of communicating with the public. It is an issue that both the Select Committee on Public Administration and the Committee on Standards in Public Life have reviewed recently. Both were especially concerned to maintain the political impartiality of government, a matter which all noble Lords who have spoken were particularly seized of, and it is right that that should be the case. The Select Committee on Public Administration also focused on the need to join up communications across departments and integrate them more effectively into policy making and policy delivery. The last report from that Select Committee on the issue called for a radical external review of government communications. The Government responded to this positively by commissioning the Phillis review.
	Under the chairmanship of Bob Phillis, the chief executive of the Guardian Media Group plc, the review team carried out what has been recognised as a very thorough examination of all the issues. It published its interim report last August and a final report in January this year. We are grateful to that review team for its work and the way in which it considered the issues. The Government have already taken steps to address the review's key recommendations. That underpins the Government's commitment to improve our methods of communication with the public.
	As we all know, one of the most important recommendations of the Phillis review was the creation of a new Permanent Secretary for Government Communications. Howell James has now been appointed to the post. He will be head of the profession responsible for the strategy, co-ordination and effectiveness of government communication across Whitehall. He will also be responsible for increasing the professionalism and capability of government communicators. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, acknowledged that that was long overdue and much needed, particularly in terms of training. I do not see that as a centralising measure. Indeed, the objective is to ensure effective communication from all government departments. The relationship between the Minister and the head of communications within each department will obviously be very important. However, I am sure that most Members of your Lordships' House would agree that co-ordination and drawing together the threads of government is an important role too.
	Howell James will take up his post in the summer. He will focus on the redefinition of the role and scope of government communications to ensure that we are communicating with the public in the widest possible way. That includes increasing two-way communications to help improve policy-making and the delivery of public services. It also involves more communication with the public at a local level, one that matters to them, and more direct communication, especially through the electronic media.
	The Government have recently taken a significant step forward in joining up its web presence to make information more accessible, as Phillis recommended, with the recent launch of the Directgov website. The Government have also accepted and begun to make changes to the way in which Number 10 Downing Street operates. The Phillis recommendations were quite clear about the operation of government communications at the centre. The Prime Minister's special adviser on communications no longer has executive powers, a matter that was objected to. The Prime Minister's official spokesperson, a civil servant who conducts the lobby briefings, will report to the Permanent Secretary. The Government also remain committed to the long-standing principle reflected in the ministerial code that, wherever possible, announcements of government policy should be made in Parliament, as noble Lords have argued in the context of this debate.
	The other issue raised this evening is the implementation of the Freedom of Information Act. I think that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, was suggesting that we should have a government recommitment to an FOI policy. It is perhaps worth reminding ourselves that the major part of the Freedom of Information Act comes into effect in January of next year. That will allow the Government to demonstrate their commitment to openness and transparency, which is part of effective communication with the public. People will have the right to be told if information is held on them and to see it; they will get real, important information about the issues that affect them. This openness will encourage greater participation in democratic life and help to build confidence in public institutions.
	I thought that the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, on that point were important. I was grateful that he too shares that objective. It needs to be fostered and developed across parties to ensure that we rebuild that trust and take steps to counter an apparent disengagement, which many people have commented on in the past few days.
	A great deal of work is going on to ensure that departments are fully prepared for the Freedom of Information Act. The Phillis review's recommendations will be carefully taken into account as part of the implementation process.
	The central contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, was his concern about the centrally controlled press machine. I take issue with his description of the role; it was by implication an attack on the role of the new Permanent Secretary. The role is to redefine government communications. In essence, that is a much more strategic role. It is not about managing news; it is about improving communications with the public. Individual Ministers will remain—exactly as the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, wants—individually responsible for their departments. As I said earlier, joined-up government requires a more strategic approach to communications. That needs to take into account the importance of getting messages right so that the public understand what government are about, what they are trying to achieve, what their objectives are and what that means for them.
	The noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, forcibly made the point that briefings should be carried out by Ministers, not officials, and that they should be conducted directly in Parliament. By and large that happens. Government remain strongly committed to the long-standing principle reflected in the ministerial code, that wherever possible in the first instance announcements should be made to Parliament.
	It is agreed that more Ministers should host lobby briefings and that those should be open and televised. The Government are discussing with the relevant public authorities, including Parliament and the parliamentary lobby, how best to pursue that particular proposal.
	I have dealt with the issues relating to the freedom of information and our commitment towards it. It is a strong commitment and an important statement in legislation. We were the first government to introduce freedom of legislation in this country. I think that we should take more credit on that issue than perhaps we have been given to date.
	The noble Lord, Lord McNally, never misses the opportunity to criticise government spend and the relationship between that spend and the electoral cycle. It is worth reminding ourselves that that spend has to be properly audited. The National Audit Office specifically undertook a review at the request of the chair of the Public Accounts Committee. It concluded that rules of propriety had been followed and advice and propriety was a significant part of advice provided by the Central Office of Information.
	Government spend on advertising includes campaigns that I know that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, will find entirely laudable. Examples include recruitment to the Armed Forces or the Police Service; encouragement for people to take up places in higher education or become nurses; for more doctors to work within the National Health Service; or to ensure effective promotion of literacy training, energy efficiency or a constant stream of blood donors. All those are at the core of what the Government promote through our spend on advertising. As I said earlier, given the size of the Government, it is hardly surprising that the budget is as it is and that it has increased over the years. All of that takes place within the rules and is conducted with propriety.
	My time has almost ended. I simply restate that we as a Government are working hard to improve how we deliver on one of our most essential tasks: communicating with the public. The Government agree with the independent Phillis review that we must communicate with the public in the widest possible way. The appointment of a new Permanent Secretary for Government Communications is a first and important step in taking that work forward to develop a communications service that better meets the needs and demands of today's environment. I am confident that we will meet that challenge.
	I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, for introducing this debate. It is important and we should continue it, because it reflects well on how the Government work.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn until 8.40 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	[The Sitting was suspended from 8.26 to 8.40 p.m.]

Higher Education Bill

Further consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 31.

Lord Rix: moved Amendment No. 40:
	Page 15, line 2, at beginning insert "subject to the approval of the Director of Fair Access under subsection (4A) below,"

Lord Rix: My Lords, my probing amendments, Amendments Nos. 40 and 43, relate to the tax and benefit implications of bursary schemes.
	It was said of John Erskine, the Earl of Mar—a distant kinsman of my noble friend Lady Mar, who is certainly non-Jacobite—after he had lost the battle of Sheriffmuir, that he was a better Churchman than he was a general because his right hand knew not what his left hand was doing. I have tried to imagine our present Secretary of State for Education and Skills clad in tartan, claymore in hand, striding through the heather; on the whole, it is an exercise in the imagination best left unattempted. Yet there are concerns that the Secretary of State's policies have a passing resemblance to those of the ill-fated Jacobite general.
	There is a concern that our current taxation and welfare benefit systems will take away with the Chancellor's left hand what the universities through their schemes of financial assistance provide with their right hand. There is a concern that all these arrangements will generate much churning of finances but leave few of the neediest students better off. Indeed, there is also concern that mature students and part-time students will be at particular risk of being net losers.
	At the very least there needs to be an urgent ministerial statement to confirm that students will not lose benefits or be penalised through the tax credits system if they are in receipt of bursaries. I look forward to hearing the Government's response. I beg to move.

Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: My Lords, noble Lords will know that I am deeply concerned about the lack of clarity about whether bursaries and government grants will be taken into account in the assessment of eligibility for means-tested benefits. It is not at all clear that the very poorest students will not have the support given to them with one hand taken away with the other, as the noble Lord has said. Furthermore, it is by no means clear that universities will not be required by OFFA to use precious resources to provide bursaries to students, only to see the Government claw back the same amount or even more by reducing the appropriate benefits. We are particularly concerned that students with children might lose tax credits.
	I understand that there are complicated arguments involved but I should be grateful if the Minister could assure the House that the Government will recognise that university students from poor backgrounds will not lose benefits as a result of the Bill. After all, the Government are committed to providing a significant increase in support for students on the grounds that that will enable and encourage the poorest to participate.
	Universities have agreed to offer bursaries and to submit their plans in this regard to OFFA for approval on the grounds that the poorest students may need additional financial support and incentives to apply to university. We know that, when striving to attract poor students to apply to university, the perception can be as important as the reality. The perception that students will lose income from benefits may constitute a major barrier to participation from this group. I urge the Government to consider that university students are a special case and should be treated as such by government. I look forward to the Minister's reply.
	That said, I note that the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, refers to OFFA having a role in approving provisions for financial assistance. That is not what OFFA will do, as I understand it. I think that it is important to hold on to the principle that OFFA will look at an institution's widening participation strategy as a whole and make a summative assessment, rather than approving individual components of it.
	I am also not convinced that it should be OFFA's role to sort out the problem of eligibility for means-tested benefits. That is a matter for the Government. Having said that, I support the thrust of the presentation by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and I look forward to the Minister's reply.

Lord Triesman: My Lords, happily devolution means that my right honourable friend Charles Clarke will not have to go to Scotland on any war-like missions. I ought to tell the House that so expert are the civil servants who are helping us on this that they have already given me a briefing note on Sheriffmuir and the battle of 1715, just in case there was any gap in your Lordships' knowledge. Apparently, there are some who say that we won, and some who say that they won, and some who say that no one won at all. I think that I have got it right.
	I welcome the opportunity that these amendments provide to explore the impact of bursaries and other financial assistance on students' entitlement to welfare benefits and their tax status. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rix, for providing this chance to debate further an issue that has been raised by Universities UK and by the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, who has played a vital role in advocating this case.
	Let me deal first with the question of tax status and tax credits. Section 331 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988, the ICTA, states that income arising from a scholarship held by a person receiving full-time instruction at a university, college, school or other educational establishment shall be exempt from income tax, and no account shall be taken of any such income in computing the amount of income for income tax purposes. In this section, "scholarship" includes an exhibition, bursary or any other similar endowment. The Inland Revenue has advised us that in practice any grant of money for support of students in full-time education would qualify. As for tax credits, we have been advised that income that is exempt from income tax by virtue of Section 331 of the ICTA is disregarded in calculating a claimant's income. Therefore, it appears that bursaries and other financial assistance that institutions will offer to full-time students will not affect students' tax status or entitlement to tax credits.
	The position with benefits, as was explained to noble Lords in Committee, is more dependent on the purpose for which the additional assistance is given. Assistance towards fees or course costs is normally disregarded for benefits purposes. I expect that institutions' proposals on financial assistance will be many and varied. The impact of different schemes will no doubt vary according to students' individual circumstances. For example, a student who had the option of cheap lodgings with friends or relatives might not be persuaded by cheap halls of residence, should an institution decide to offer its financial assistance in the form of subsidised accommodation. The same principle will also apply in the case of welfare benefits. In other words, students on welfare benefits can look at the bursary options available to them in deciding which best suits their needs.
	We are working closely with the Department for Work and Pensions to reach an agreement on arrangements for the small proportion of full-time students who can simultaneously be eligible for benefits. Our objective, like that of the noble Lord, is to ensure that students receive real additional benefit from grants and bursaries, although I cannot give a firm commitment at this stage on the precise outcome of those discussions. However, in the interim period, I do not think it right to pass the burden of responsibility for this issue on to institutions through the Director of Fair Access. I hope that the noble Lord agrees with that point and will decide to withdraw his amendment.
	I confirm that we are working actively with the DWP on this. Only a small proportion of full-time students receive benefits, but they are in the most vulnerable groups, and it is therefore right that we should pay the greatest attention to their position. I am referring to lone parents and those with disabilities. Fee support and targeted support are not set against benefits, but support for living costs is taken into account in assessing benefit entitlement.
	We have reached an understanding with the DWP that the HE grant, which will be introduced for new students in 2004–05, will not be taken into account in assessing entitlement to means-tested benefits. Looking forward to 2006–07, we are working with the DWP to reach agreement about arrangements for the proportion of full-time students who are in receipt of benefits. Our objective, like that of the universities, is to ensure that students receive real additional benefit from this grant and bursary. We hope to be able to ensure that.

Lord Rix: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, the stress of his answer, which is largely acceptable, centred on benefits accruing to full-time students. He made no mention of part-time or mature students. Will he elaborate a little on that?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, mature students could be full-time or part-time. They would not necessarily be only part-time, although I do not take that to be the imputation of the question. Our aim in discussions with the DWP, which have not reached a conclusion because of the intricacy of the issues, is to ensure that grants and bursaries of any kind should not damage the student's benefit regime.

Lord Rix: My Lords, with that assurance and, like many noble Lords in the Chamber, not being totally au fait with the tax system, I am happy to accept the Minister's response. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, is satisfied—

Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: So far!

Lord Rix: My Lords, so far—and it is a question of so far. We will look closely at the Minister's response. I shall consult with various vice-chancellors and directors of finance at one or two local universities. If I need to return to the subject at Third Reading, I shall do so, but at the moment I am happy to withdraw my amendment. I hope that the Minister's answer will suffice.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: moved Amendment No. 40A:
	Page 15, line 2, after "assistance" insert "and high quality financial guidance"

The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, these amendments concern the broad question of how to manage money responsibly. At Second Reading, I used a shorthand expression "debt education", which was perhaps not entirely helpful. In Committee, the Minister drew a distinction between what she called "traditional debt" and "contingent repayments". I accept that they are not the same thing, but I want to return to the issue, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, who is in his place but has asked me to speak to these amendments, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, who has considerably more students in his patch than I have.
	In discussion of Amendments Nos. 86A and 87A in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, made a good case for the need for high-quality financial advice for students. The Government need to acknowledge that they must be the default provider. The amendments before the House today take account of that discussion.
	Some students, particularly those outside the qualifying thresholds, will find themselves under increasing pressure. Others who are entitled to the maximum support may find themselves in receipt of cheques for substantial amounts of money which they will have to manage. In the earlier debate, there was strong support for the amendment on the provision of financial advice and the responsibility which government and the institutions need to take. It was acknowledged that many are already doing so.
	However, if the provision of advice is over-burdensome for regulatory reasons, perhaps guidance would be more acceptable. I trust that the word "advice" is not problematic in the second amendment as others will be providing it.
	There are difficulties in asking universities to provide ongoing financial advice or guidance for graduates up to 25 years later. The amendment would help ensure that students were properly equipped to know where to seek support in the future.
	I shall go briefly into the question of the citizens advice bureaux. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, who wishes to be associated with the amendments but did not get his name to them in time, spoke to me this evening. He told me that citizens advice bureaux are sympathetic to the idea of endeavouring to supply a service to universities. There are a thousand CABs in the country, and a major commitment to debt advice is part of their remit.
	In conclusion, I shall, at the risk of boring your Lordships, use the word "signal" for the third time this evening. The amendments would provide a signal. It is not just that financial support is necessary, as many of us believe, in information and guidance as well as cash if students are to have the best opportunity to thrive. The amendment will be a signal—I end on a slightly lugubrious note—that will help make the Government's higher education finance policy marginally less unacceptable to those who have been opposed to it. That is the bottom line of my enthusiasm for the amendments, but I hope that I indicated it at a rather higher level earlier. I beg to move.

Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, I am inclined to support the amendments, although I have a reservation. Amendment No. 40A refers to "high quality financial guidance". That sounds good, and it had better be good if we make the amendment. The Bill says,
	"to provide, or secure the provision of".
	I suspect that it had better be the latter. We have heard about the deprivation of universities, but one wonders where the liability will lie if the advice is not very good. It would be better to have such advice given by people who are suitably qualified and who will carry the can, rather than placing another burden on the universities.
	It is certainly right that people who do not have a clue how to organise themselves financially should have a clue and that such advice should be provided. However, we are talking about advice to people taking on different forms of debt or, in a minority of cases perhaps, advice on making some form of investment. There should be proper guidance, and the people who give it should be properly qualified.

Lord Puttnam: My Lords, I identify entirely with the remarks made by the right reverend Prelate. Everything that I said at Second Reading and in Committee related to the quality of advice, which should come from the most expert sources that we can find. It is not a complicated matter.
	I take issue to some extent with those who say that someone seeking graduate education ought to have the kind of inquiring mind that will automatically seek out advice. That just is not true. I shall not trouble the House with it, but I have any amount of anecdotal evidence that makes it clear that very bright students are perfectly capable of getting themselves into the most appalling mess in such situations. It helps neither the House nor the students to pretend otherwise.
	In fairness, I must say that the Minister has been helpful. We have continued the discussion, and we will have some meetings this week with the sort of high-quality advisers to whom the noble Lord, Lord Shutt of Greetland, was referring. I have every hope that we will not have to press the issue at Third Reading. That would be unfortunate. There is no particular reason why such an issue must find its way into the Bill, but there is a feeling around the House that the Government must say something to make it clear that they are conscious of the need to ensure that some form of default provision is available to students who need it.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth and my noble friend Lord Puttnam for bringing us back to this issue. I shall not detain the House for long because, as my noble friend Lord Puttnam said, we are continuing our dialogue. This week, we are meeting others to discuss those issues further. I, too, have the ambition that my noble friend and the right reverend Prelate will not need to bring this matter back at Third Reading.
	As interesting as the comments about the citizens advice bureaux were, members of the National Association of Student Money Advisers—NASMA—already provide that advice to students. Of course, they have specialist knowledge of student affairs and finances. I am not suggesting that the CAB is not an important organisation, but we just need to be aware that there are organisations in place.
	Amendment No. 40A would change one of the provisions of an access plan; namely, the provision of financial assistance to students. I appreciate that in their wording of the amendment the right reverend Prelate and my noble friend have listened to what I said about advisers having to be licensed by the Office of Fair Trading. But changing the word "advice" to "guidance" does not solve the problem, although I suspect that my noble friend and the right reverend Prelate were hoping that it might; in fact, it would still be the same.
	All through the Bill, we have been very careful to avoid overburdening institutions with the contents of access plans. Noble Lords will not be surprised that I am not tempted in that direction with this amendment. In Committee, we talked about how much the Government are doing in terms of the website, leaflets and so forth, as well as the work that is being done by the National Union of Students, which is critical. There is nothing like peer groups—I am not sure whether that is another pun in your Lordships' House—to put across the case.
	My noble friend Lord Puttnam, in particular, knows that Amendment No. 40B would create a difficulty of interpretation—I am not really sure of what the wording would become. I know that my noble friend is interested in looking at what more can be done as regards national helplines, what the Government might do and so forth. I have already indicated that NASMA does important work.
	I am not tempted by the access plans. I am continuing to have meetings with my noble friend Lord Puttnam—the right reverend Prelate is always welcome to join us—in order to determine what we can do between now and Third Reading to ensure that we do not have to debate this matter again. On that basis, I hope that the right reverend Prelate will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to watch the Minister like an angel dancing on the pinhead. I am ready to enter into dialogue and future non-claymore battle over this. I graciously beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 40B not moved.]

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 41:
	Page 15, line 6, leave out from "objectives" to end of line 7 and insert "relating to the promotion of equality of opportunity and, in relation to Wales, the promotion of higher education"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 41A not moved.]

Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: moved Amendment No. 42:
	Page 15, line 12, at end insert—
	"( ) Regulations made under subsection (2) may not require a plan to include provisions relating to the criteria for the admission of students."

Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: My Lords, in Committee, the Minister indicated that she was willing to accept my amendment, which would prevent OFFA requiring institutions to include in their plans matters relating to admissions. I am grateful for that. However, I must confess to the House that in Committee I failed to move the amendment in the appropriate place. With apologies, I therefore wish to move it now.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, as I indicated in Committee, I accept the amendment.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 43 not moved.]

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 44:
	Page 15, line 13, at end insert—
	""equality of opportunity" means equality of opportunity in connection with access to higher education;"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 45:
	Page 15, leave out lines 23 to 25.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I should like to inform the House that Amendment No. 45 is consequential to Amendment No. 34A, which the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, did not move. I have discussed this with the noble Baroness and she is fully aware of what is happening. I apologise if that has caused confusion.

[Amendment No. 45 not moved.]
	Clause 32 [Approval of plans]:

Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: moved Amendment No. 46:
	Page 15, line 43, at end insert—
	"( ) The Secretary of State may not make regulations under this section unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing them has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House."

Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: My Lords, in Committee, I made it clear that I welcomed the Government's decision to bring forward amendments that accept the recommendations made by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and subject regulations under Clauses 31 and 35 to the affirmative resolution procedure. That was a very positive move. However, I also indicated that I thought that regulations under Clauses 32, 33 and 34 should be similarly subject to the affirmative procedure. The Government did not accept my argument, although the Minister did agree that they would consult with the sector on changes to the regulations. That is also welcome. However, since I feel strongly about this point, I want to return to it.
	A great deal of what OFFA will do is to be set out in regulations. The Government will have significant power to make OFFA more interventionist or bureaucratic by means of regulations, which will make it much harder for institutions to work constructively with it. For example, the powers in Clause 32 cover the approval of plans. These regulations may specify matters to which the relevant authority is or is not to have regard in making any determination relating to approval.
	Universities UK—as I have done on each occasion, I declare my interest as chief executive—never much liked this provision, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, will recall that we strongly supported the Liberal Democrat amendment accepted by the Government in Committee in another place which sought to narrow the scope of the Secretary of State to dictate the terms by prescribing in regulations cases in which the relevant authority must or may not approve a plan. That provision was removed by the Liberal Democrat amendment and was an important victory.
	But the fact that the Secretary of State retains the powers contained in Clause 32(5) means that it is vital for Parliament and the sector to have some opportunity to influence what the regulations dictate. Clauses 33 and 34 also contain significant regulation-making powers. For example, Clause 33 relates to the duration of plans, currently expected to be five years, which we think strikes the right balance between keeping them current without them becoming overly burdensome. But what if a future Secretary of State were to specify that plans have to be renewed every year? That would constitute a very significant increase in the bureaucratic burden on institutions.
	I hope that my noble friend will accept that the regulations under these clauses ought to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure and I look forward to hearing what she has to say. I beg to move.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I think I am right in saying that it was claimed in Committee that because the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee had not said that this should be dealt with by affirmative resolution, it meant that it thought it should not.
	Speaking in general about the committee, of which I am a member, I should make it clear that the committee advises the House when it feels strongly about something, but it does not always consider matters very carefully. I have forgotten whether the committee considered this in detail. However, clearly it did not feel strongly or it would have said that this should be under the affirmative resolution procedure.
	However, it is for the House to do what it wants—always. The committee merely advises the House. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will not feel that she has to take the line of resisting the amendment because the committee expressed the opposite view. I think that it expressed no view. I contribute these words in the hope that they are helpful.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I added my name to the amendment because the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, is quite right to point out that much of what is to be done in this Bill will be by regulation. It is therefore appropriate that the House should keep an eye on what is happening. I think it is part of open government that we should not only know but should also take a positive view on such matters when they come before the House. Therefore I endorse the amendment moved by the noble Baroness.

Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will be able to accept these amendments. They relate to some very important clauses in the Bill about which concern has been expressed. It would be in the interests of the success of the Bill as a whole if these regulations were dealt with under the affirmative procedure and could therefore be automatically debated before coming into effect.

The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, the amendment has a great deal of sense to it and I hope that it will receive support from the Minister.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I have listened carefully to the debate on these issues. I appreciate the concern that there should be robust safeguards and I recognise the importance of having them. We have accepted the recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee that regulations made under Clauses 31(2) and 35(2)(c) should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Noble Lords will know that we tabled two government amendments to that effect in Committee.
	I should say to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, that I always assume that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee considers these matters very carefully. I hope that members of that committee will recognise that, with respect to the Bills for which I am responsible, I take great note of what it recommends. Therefore, when it tells us not to do something, it is not that we ignore it; it is simply that we anticipate that it does not have the same strength of feeling about it. I think that that is the only basis on which I can proceed.
	I know that my noble friend has great concerns about this issue. However, we have said that the first regulations—which in a sense, from my noble friend's point of view, and that of other Members of your Lordships' House, are the most critical—will be laid as one set of regulations and they will all be subject to affirmative resolution. I hope that that will allay noble Lords' concerns that something might slip through under the negative procedure. It is critical that the House should understand what will happen.
	In my experience of your Lordships' House, there is no suggestion that regulations introduced under the negative procedure are not subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Noble Lords have prayed—and I am sure that they will continue to pray—against regulations and other measures about which they have concerns.
	We have accepted what the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee said. In addition, we will introduce the first regulations under the affirmative procedure; we have left the negative procedure for subsequent regulations. I believe that that fits very well with the normal parliamentary procedures of your Lordships' House. I hope that the noble Baroness will be satisfied with that.
	Finally, I should say to my noble friend that we have already shown our willingness to be open by publishing draft regulations far in advance of the need to lay them. It is our policy to do so. I hope that in the light of those reassurances my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her thoughtful reply, which I shall obviously consider. I shall need to look at the constitutional consequences and think about the matter before deciding whether to return to it at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Perry of Southwark: moved Amendment No. 47:
	Leave out Clause 32 and insert the following new Clause—
	"APPROVAL OF PLANS (NO. 2) (1) The Funding Councils shall provide to the relevant authority copies of that part of Institutions Strategic Plans relating to Fair Access arrangements, which will then comment to each institution on the content of its plan and may, if it thinks fit, approve the plan. (2) The relevant authority shall require each institution to provide an account of the financial assistance it has provided to students. (3) The relevant authority shall report to Parliament each year on progress on the plans and on the financial assistance which has been provided to students under the plans."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 33 [Duration of plans]:

Baroness Perry of Southwark: moved Amendment No. 48:
	Page 16, line 4, leave out from "made" to end of line 6 and insert "by the Funding Councils"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 49 not moved.]
	Clause 34 [Variation of plans]:
	[Amendment No. 50 not moved.]
	Clause 35 [Enforcement of plans: England]:

Baroness Perry of Southwark: moved Amendment No. 51:
	Page 16, line 18, leave out "or (c)"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 52:
	Page 16, line 25, at end insert—
	"( ) The governing body of an institution is not to be regarded for the purposes of subsection (1) as having failed to comply with the requirement specified in section 23(1)(c) by reason of its failure to comply with any of the general provisions of an English approved plan, if the governing body shows that it has taken all reasonable steps to comply with that provision."

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, in response to an amendment tabled in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Butler—whom I am delighted to see in his place—I explained that I fully support the principle that institutions that take all reasonable steps to comply with the provisions in their access plan should not be penalised when factors beyond their control prevent them from doing what they said they would do. I could not accept the noble Lord's amendment for technical reasons but I promised to take the matter away and consider it, and the amendment is the result.
	I have always believed that the director's decisions must be reasonable and the draft letter of guidance to the director makes it clear that an institution's failure to meet milestones should not in itself be grounds for any kind of sanctions. Furthermore the draft regulations require the director to enter into a dialogue with institutions before turning down an access plan or applying a sanction. The director can never reject an access plan outright in the first instance or impose a sanction without giving an institution the opportunity to make its case. He must say if he is minded to reject it and give reasons. The institution will then have an opportunity to make further representations to the director before any final decision is made. Nevertheless, I accept the case for enshrining the principle of reasonableness in primary legislation. It is right that the director must make fair and reasonable decisions and must justify them.
	I hope that noble Lords will welcome this amendment, which provides an important reassurance for institutions about how the director will go about widening participation. I beg to move.

Lord Butler of Brockwell: My Lords, I thank the Minister very warmly for being as good as her word in Committee. I recognise the elegance and the greater rigour of the drafting of this provision compared with the one that I offered in Committee. I stand a corrected and improved man.
	I have only one question for the Minister in respect of the amendment. Would it be right, in the interests of consistency, for a similar provision to be included in respect of the provisions for Wales?

Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market: My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment No. 52A, which is grouped with this amendment. As my noble friend Lord Forsyth said earlier, the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, is not able to be here owing to a prior and unavoidable commitment. Therefore, I will speak to Amendment No. 52A. Having discussed the amendment with him, I hope that the noble Lord will agree with everything I have to say.
	We had a good debate on this in Committee, so I can summarise the main points very briefly. The director is a regulator: he has very substantial powers with considerable potential impact on universities. In particular, he has the power to fine universities and prevent them introducing variable fees. It is entirely at his discretion to judge the access plans and there are no opportunities for appeal.
	This runs against the spirit of the way in which regulators are now being introduced or, alternatively, the way in which existing regulators are now being amended in legislation. In most cases, there is the opportunity for appeal. It also runs against the principles of the Better Regulation Task Force and, in particular, transparency, accountability and fairness.
	The Select Committee on the Constitution, of which my noble friend Lord Norton is the chairman, recently produced a report on the regulatory state, with particular reference to who regulates the regulators. We spent a great deal of time and developed a mass of evidence on all these issues. One of the strongest refrains, as I said in Committee, was the lack of independent appeal against a regulator's decision—not an internal system within the regulator's own ambit of reconsidering a decision but an independent appeal. We recommended that in every case where there is a regulator there should be an independent appeals system.
	This also runs against what is happening elsewhere in government at present. We are currently considering the Pensions Bill, which, in relation to the pensions regulator, has not only an internal determination panel but an independent pensions regulator tribunal. Moreover, Clause 6 of the draft Charities Bill makes provision for a charities appeal tribunal. So in most areas of government now, quite rightly, an independent appeal tribunal system is being introduced.
	Some have said that judicial review provides that appeal. Frankly, it is not an alternative or a reasonable substitute. There are three problems: on the whole, judicial review deals with the process and not the merits of a regulator's decision; it costs a great deal because lawyers are always involved; and it takes a great deal of time. So it is not really a proper alternative.
	It is interesting to reflect that in the case of pensions there would be the alternative of going to judicial review, but the pensions tribunal has also been provided, as a quicker way of dealing with issues. So in most cases now, judicial review is not regarded as a satisfactory way of dealing with appeals.
	In our debate in Committee on 25 May, the Minister raised a number of points. She said that the Government have looked at having a separate appeal tribunal and decided that it would be,
	"potentially costly, lengthy, complex and of doubtful value".—[Official Report, 25/5/04; col. 1271.]
	I hope that I have dealt with "doubtful value" in terms of the general principle.
	I would like to make two further points. First, I know that it has been argued—in front of our Select Committee, for example—that independent appeal tribunals can sometimes be seen as weapons of delay or ways of putting forward frivolous appeals. Frivolous appeals are unlikely with universities, but there are other related points. I hope that the need for appeals will not arise on many occasions. I believe that universities would act responsibly. Universities are not the type of organisation to make frivolous appeals. However, most important of all is the 12-week process in the amendment before us, which deals with the arguments about cost, length and complexity. If the process has to be completed in 12 weeks, appeals have to be solved quickly. That short time scale is a helpful way of dealing with those arguments.
	My second point of detail is in relation to the composition of the tribunal, and I do not think that the amendment necessarily offers the right answer. The amendment is different from the one in Committee, but I suspect that there is still room for discussion about the composition. One of the best ways would be to follow what the Government have set out in the Pensions Bill for the composition of the pensions tribunal, where it is suggested that the Lord Chancellor—perhaps it will now be the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs—appoints the chairman and the members of the panel. The members of the panel are not a permanent group, so no cost is involved. However, if there is an appeal, the Lord Chancellor can select the members of the panel to hear the appeal with the chairman. That seems to be a sensible method.
	The Pensions Bill has rather a lot of detailed clauses about the pensions tribunal itself. I am not sure that we need such detail in this case, but if we follow the precedent in terms of the composition, most of the problems will be dealt with. I acknowledge that this amendment is not perfect and probably needs further adjustment, but I think that that can be done.
	In Committee, the Minister kindly offered the opportunity of further discussions, which the noble Lords, Lord Sutherland and Lord Norton, and I have had with the Minister. We are extremely grateful for those. I hope that she now understands the type of argument that we are putting forward and our willingness to be flexible in order to reach the right solution. I look forward to hearing what she has to say. I am grateful for the meetings, but what is important is the principle that is now being applied to many other regulators. Therefore, I beg to move.

Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, I know that there is pressure to be brief. I have to catch a train back to Hull this evening, so I do not intend to detain the House for too long. I made clear some of my reservations about OFFA in Committee. Following that debate, I came to the view that, if we are to have a Director of Fair Access, two amendments to the Bill are essential. I am pleased to say that those two amendments are the ones before us.
	I am very pleased that the Minister moved Amendment No. 52, following the amendment moved in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Butler. In Committee, the Minister pointed out quite rightly that a visit to a university campus may make a pupil aware for the first time of the potential of going to university. It may prompt an application for university entry. The problem for the university arranging such campus visits, is that the application may be to another university. It may be doing the hard work to attract students, but that does not necessarily deliver the students. It may do, but one must recognise that it may not.
	As my noble friend Lord Renfrew said earlier today—and this point was also made in Committee—it may be difficult to overcome a culture of not going to university. However hard universities and schools work together, there is no guarantee of success, although I fully recognise the value of the efforts made. The noble Lord, Lord Dearing, referred earlier to the work of my own university, the University of Hull, and I can confirm the tremendous work being done by that university. In response to the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, earlier, such work is carried out most effectively at departmental level, and I speak from experience.
	For those reasons, the amendment moved by the Minister is extraordinarily important. It ensures a degree of equity and will go a long way to assuage many of the doubts held by universities. It will not in any way reduce the efforts made by universities to widen access but it will reduce the worries that otherwise would exist. I therefore welcome the Government's response to the discussion at Committee stage in tabling this amendment.
	The other amendment that I think is essential is Amendment No. 52A, to which my noble friend Lord MacGregor has already spoken. The Office for Fair Access is being established to deal with what the Government see as a particular problem. The director, however, will join an ever-growing body of regulators, as my noble friend said. The new office needs to be seen in that context. Regulators are created in order to take decisions independent of government. Independence of government, however, does not mean that regulators are not accountable for their decisions.
	My noble friend Lord MacGregor referred to the recent report of the Constitution Committee on regulators, to which the Minister referred earlier in our deliberations. In that report, we drew attention to the extent to which regulators should be, and to some extent are, accountable to different bodies. These include the bodies that are subject to regulation. It is important that the decisions of regulators are open to the possibility of independent review. There should be some means of challenging decisions through an appeals procedure.
	The value of an appeals procedure is generally accepted. That is clear from the evidence presented to the committee. Sir Christopher Bellamy, chairman of the Competition Appeal Tribunal, drew attention to the value of an appeals procedure in improving the quality of decision making and in improving confidence in the process as a whole. The case for having an appeals procedure is compelling; the problem is with the appeals mechanisms that exist.
	The decisions of regulators are subject to judicial review. The problem with that, as my noble friend said, is that the scope for review is narrow. Unless regulators have acted ultra vires or irrationally, or against the principles of administrative law, their decisions are not open to challenge. Judicial review is expensive and time consuming, and delay can cause major problems. Many regulated bodies are therefore reluctant to go down that path.
	There is no right of appeal on the merits of the case unless Parliament has specifically provided for it. Parliament, however, has variously provided for it. It has not done so in a vacuum. Legislation has been influenced by Article 6 of the European Convention and by developments in the Court of First Instance in Luxembourg, which hears appeals from the European Commission and which has adopted procedures closer to appeals on the merits or a rehearing than just judicial review.
	The Competition Act 1998 provides for the OFT and the sector-specific regulators in their own areas to be subject to appeal broadly on the merits of the case. The Communications Act 2003 incorporates a directive allowing for appeals to an independent tribunal and appeals on the merits of the case. The Act, as the report of the Constitution Committee notes, sets a generic precedent. My noble friend has outlined the other legislation under consideration, which extends the scope for an independent appeals mechanism. The Constitution Committee considers that there should be greater coherence and that we should move towards appeals based on the merits of the case. It is important that such appeals do not emulate judicial review in terms of time and cost. We favour fast-track procedures; we also recognise that there needs to be some mechanism to prevent vexatious appeals.
	I therefore support the amendment moved by my noble friend. It provides for appeals on the merits of the case and builds in an important and reasonable time constraint. It may be necessary for some tweaking to sift out appeals which are vexatious and designed simply to frustrate the process. However, as my noble friend said, in any case we are not likely to be talking about a large number of appeals.
	The case for appeals on the merits of the case is powerful on grounds of equity. It is also something that is likely to become more pervasive, not least because of Article 6 of the European Convention. The Constitution Committee recommends that we should provide for such an appeals mechanism. I hope, therefore, that in the light of the committee's report the amendment will receive a positive response from the Minister.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, looking back to our debate on Clause 31 regarding the contents of the plan for Wales and as the Bill now stands, I should have thought that a means of appeal was absolutely essential. I support Amendment No. 52A on those grounds alone.

Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: My Lords, I found the interventions of the noble Lords, Lord MacGregor and Lord Norton, extremely impressive and I shall look forward to reading the detail. I very much supported these two amendments in Committee and I would like to do so again. The amendment tabled by the Minister clarifying that an institution will not be punished if an access agreement agreed with OFFA has no impact on the student body will certainly reassure universities. As the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, has reminded us in our debates, there are many factors that make up the student body; for example, prior attainment, performance at school or the performance of schools themselves. Some of these are beyond the power of universities to influence, so this amendment is very welcome.
	The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, also has my support. Although I hope that institutions and OFFA will be able to resolve their differences through negotiation, it is always possible that this route will fail. An independent appeal mechanism would therefore be a valuable addition to the system. We must ensure that such a mechanism would be cheaper and quicker for institutions than the current proposal of judicial review. If this can be assured, I hope that we will see this amendment on the face of the Bill.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, I thank the Minister for Amendment No. 52. At an earlier stage, the noble Lord, Lord Butler, made a very persuasive case for it. I shall not reiterate the arguments: there is no point in arguing for something that we now have. I thank the Minister for that.
	On Amendment No. 52A, my noble friend Lord MacGregor has given several examples. In the discussions that I have had with the Minister, she has asked me to point to a possible mechanism. Many have been mentioned. I do not know what she is going to say tonight in response but, in the friendliest possible way, I say to her that the Bill is not going to reach the statute book without this matter coming up again and again. There is clearly strong feeling on the matter. But it is not beyond the wit of the Civil Service, as we were reminded, to be the servants of Ministers and to be flexible and ingenious in finding a solution to difficult problems. With such a good Minister, I am sure that between them they can resolve this and we can stop endlessly discussing these issues and can reach a resolution.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Butler, that there is a power in the Bill at Clause 28(3) that would enable the Assembly to replicate this clause for Wales in regulations and to designate the relevant authority. I shall have discussions with my colleagues in Wales and formally respond to the noble Lord on the point that he raised about Wales before Third Reading.
	I congratulate and thank the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland—who I am sure we all wish a speedy recovery from his operation—and the noble Lords, Lord MacGregor and Lord Norton, for the work that they have put in to bring forward this amendment and for taking the time and trouble to have a discussion with me last week, which I found extremely valuable. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Norton, said that he is now able to vote for OFFA and I am very pleased. We will see when the matter returns.
	As noble Lords will know, when we discussed an earlier amendment I expressed concern about the membership of appeal panels and the limiting of access to the courts. The amendment now before us has been changed to avoid those problems and I appreciate the creative thinking that has gone into that. As the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, said, in Committee he referred to the report of the Select Committee on the Constitution chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Norton, and in particular to Chapter 11 on improving appeal mechanisms. I have now studied that and noted its concerns as both noble Lords have indicated that regulatory decisions should be subject to proper review and that judicial review has sometimes proved expensive and time-consuming.
	We propose that the discretion whether to approve an access plan should lie with the director but I accept that it should be possible for some independent person or panel to invite the director to think again. I would find it more difficult if an appeal panel and not the director decided the terms on which an access plan would be approved. That would simply substitute the discretion of the director for the appeal panel. From my discussions with the noble Lords, I think that it is possible for us to propose a solution that meets all our concerns.
	The House will not be surprised that I cannot accept the amendment as it stands. There are a number of matters about which I am concerned. However, I undertake to discuss this matter further with the noble Lords concerned and to return at Third Reading with a proposed way forward. On that understanding, I hope noble Lords will not press their amendment.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market: had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 52A:
	After Clause 35, insert the following new clause—
	"RIGHT OF APPEAL (1) There will be a right of appeal against the decision of the Director of Fair Access to Higher Education. (2) The Appeal and any supporting evidence must be submitted within twelve weeks of notification of the governing body. (3) The appeal will be heard by a panel of three, appointed by the Secretary of State under Nolan rules. (4) The decision of the panel, which may be by majority, should be delivered within twelve weeks of the receipt of the appeal."

Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market: My Lords, I am very grateful for the Minister's response. We look forward to seeing what she brings forward at Third Reading. On that basis I am happy not to move the amendment.

[Amendment No. 52A not moved.]
	Clause 36 [Enforcement of plans: Wales]:

Baroness Perry of Southwark: moved Amendment No. 53:
	Page 16, line 37, leave out "or (c)"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 38 [Interpretation of Part 3]:
	[Amendment No. 54 not moved.]
	Clause 40 [Other amendments of section 22 of Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998]:
	[Amendment No. 55 not moved.]

Baroness Greengross: moved Amendment No. 55A:
	After Clause 40, insert the following new clause—
	"ACCESS TO STUDENT LOANS The age of a student may not be included in regulations as an eligibility criterion for access to student loans."

Baroness Greengross: My Lords, perhaps it is inevitable but regrettable that issues concerning the later stage of life are considered at a later hour. However, I shall be brief as many of the points were discussed in Committee in some detail. I should like to thank noble Lords for their support.
	Having now had the chance to consider more fully what the Minister said in Committee last month, there are still a couple of matters to which I should like to return. That is why I have retabled the proposed new clause.
	First, I remain of the view that the Government are rather strangely fixated on the age of 65 as a cut-off point for student loans. Such a cut-off point will be increasingly anachronistic in our changing society. That point was echoed very well in the report on the economics of an ageing population produced by the Economic Affairs Select Committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Peston.
	In my view the 25-year write-off provision is sufficient. A student would have to be over 40 before the age 65 cut-off superseded the 25-year write-off period. Can the Minister tell the House what percentage of students complete their courses after the age of 40? Even with our changing demography, it will be many years before it is the norm to retrain or begin education in one's fifties, or even older.
	I hope that the Government can at least commit to reconsider the age 65 cut-off point as it lies at the root of the ageism regarding student loans. Such a review would also have to consider the impact of the death of a student before the 25-year repayment period is complete, and should take account of the implications of our rising longevity, as the Cabinet Office report, Winning the Generation Game, highlighted in 2000. That was four years ago. It is now time for action to be taken.
	Secondly, with respect, the Minister seems to be burying her head in the sand regarding the impact of the EU directive on equal treatment in employment and training after October 2006. The courts may indeed have found in the Government's favour so far, but it seems a great shame for government to be forced to do something by the courts after 2006 when they could, and should, begin to tackle this now.
	In Committee the Minister mentioned costs but without being specific. I understand that it is a question of priorities—it always is for any government. However, can she at least give me an indication of the potential and realistic costs of my proposed new clause?
	In conclusion, I hope that my proposed new clause will be a way of getting joined-up government. The DWP is trying to remove barriers to continued employment for older people. The DfES should do likewise in education and training, which would help to make that a reality. I beg to move.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I support the amendment of my noble friend Lady Greengross, as, indeed, I did in Committee. Like the unfair treatment of part-time students and their institutions, this is another issue on which I feel strongly.
	As a former mature student when I graduated from LSE in 1985, aged 53, I am acutely aware that I was not far from the cut-off point at which, had I needed it, I would have been ineligible for a loan. Some 20 years later I feel even more strongly that no such cut-off point should exist. We should also not forget that in those days higher education fees were considerably lower than they are today and will be in future.
	I shall not repeat the details of points made previously in Committee, but there are three points that I wish to reinforce as to why having a cut-off point is wrong. First, the lifelong, ladder learning approach is increasingly part of our embedded culture and is warmly supported by the Government. If, as a citizen, a student is entitled to take an undergraduate university degree, the age at which that person takes such a degree is immaterial if he has been accepted by his chosen university. Any government grant, loan, or other kind of financial support that goes with the course should be available regardless of when the student wishes to take up that option.
	Secondly, we have already heard that age discrimination will be outlawed by 2006, so how do the Government justify what they are doing in the light of that law? I believe that I alerted the Minister a few weeks ago to the existence of the report by the Select Committee on Economic Affairs, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, which was published some seven months ago and has still not been debated on the Floor of this House. It is not just a question of equal opportunities. Our life expectancy increases daily, there are clear signs that a retirement age for the purposes of any pension will have to be moved increasingly upwards and, therefore, the need—not just the wish—to continue in employment will increase. A degree, even at such a later age, might be just the thing to help one gain the new skills that will enable one to start a second or third career or set up a new business.
	Thirdly, taking a degree course in one's latter years for the first time, even if it is purely for self- gratification and enjoyment, is an acknowledged way of keeping the brain active and engaged. That point was made earlier from the Benches opposite. The individual would, therefore, be less likely to be an early NHS user or an early entrant to a long-stay hospital or an old people's home.
	The Select Committee's report, to which I referred, concluded that the restriction of student loans to people below the age of 54 was blatant discrimination. I should be grateful to hear the Minister's reaction to that.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, we on these Benches support the amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Howe, is correct to say that keeping the mind active helps to keep the body healthy and there is every reason to encourage people to continue their education as long as they wish to. We mouth the concept of lifelong learning and we often talk about how, with an ageing population, all of us shall have to carry on working longer. Yet it is incredible that we are writing into legislation discrimination that by 2006 will be outlawed by European legislation.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships' House is a good example of—something.

The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, the noble Baroness is the youngest person here.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am getting older by the minute. In Committee, I paid tribute to the work of the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, in promoting a culture of lifelong learning, and I emphasised my commitment and that of the Government to that objective. I am happy to repeat that here. I also said that we accepted that there was further dialogue to be had on the subject of age limits, and we shall continue to listen to representations. Whatever the time of day or night when it is debated in your Lordships' House, it is an important issue, and I am mindful of the passion with which noble Lords have spoken.
	It is worth saying that the age limits apply only to loans. All students, including those aged 55 and over, are eligible for the full range of non-repayable higher education grants. Of course, elements of the student support package specifically help older students. Notably, under our proposals, eligible students of any age will be eligible for the maintenance grant of £2,700. Therefore, as I said, the only element of financial support that older students cannot receive is loans.
	We have discussed—I shall not reiterate them—the issues which come down to a question of financial resources. If the age limit were to be abolished, the cost to public funds would be significant. As I indicated, it is an issue of resources.
	I shall not say much more, other than that I recognise that we make difficult choices in our efforts to provide funding to a wide range of people who are in need. We believe that the current limit is set so as to ensure that the great majority of loans are repaid. That, of course, is necessary for the sake of public finances. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, that the costs involved depend on the implications of a change, and those are difficult to quantify.
	Having said all that—I have cut my response considerably—I know that my right honourable friend the Minister with responsibility for higher education understands the depth of feeling on this issue and that he is determined to keep an open mind on the possibility of change. He has agreed to the establishment of a joint working group to consider proposals in this area. I cannot guarantee the outcome, but I expect that the process will facilitate at least a shared understanding of the issues and that it will be helpful in underpinning further consideration of these issues. It will look precisely at the issues of cost, and so on, which the noble Baroness indicated needed to be considered in greater detail.
	Through your Lordships' House, I shall ask that the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, joins that working group. We also have it in mind to invite representatives from Age Concern, NIACE and other bodies which have a particular concern for older students. I shall be very happy to take any views from your Lordships on future, and further, membership of such a group, and especially from the noble Baronesses, Lady Greengross and Lady Howe.
	I shall be happy to discuss with the noble Baroness how the working group will operate with the representation that I have indicated. I am also happy to consider who else might participate in it. On the basis that the working group will be set up, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I wonder whether she can answer the question that I specifically asked about the recommendations contained in the Select Committee report, which has been published but not yet debated.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, as I indicated, the reason that I am suggesting a working group is that not only can it consider this question but it can also take on board the recommendations put forward. Noble Lords will know that the Government's position has been taken through the Court of Appeal. It has been accepted that, as a financial, and scarce, resource, education loans can be treated in the way that I have indicated. I am mindful of the report of my noble friend Lord Peston. However, I think that, in order to progress on these issues, what I have suggested to the noble Baroness and to my right honourable friend will take us further and will enable us to have the kind of detailed discussions that we clearly need to undertake.

Baroness Greengross: My Lords, I welcome the Minister's commitment that her department will undertake further work on this issue in the coming months. I know that NIACE, Age Concern and others, including myself, will be delighted by that commitment and will want to be involved. I thank the noble Baroness and her right honourable friend in the other place for the attention that they have given to this issue. I understand that we need to know the facts before changes are made to the law, and I accept that this is a very welcome step forward, for which I thank the Minister most sincerely. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Triesman: moved Amendment No. 55B:
	Before Clause 43, insert the following new clause—
	"EXCLUSION OF VISITOR'S JURISDICTION IN RELATION TO STAFF DISPUTES (1) The visitor of a qualifying institution has no jurisdiction in respect of— (a) any dispute relating to a member of staff which concerns his appointment or employment or the termination of his appointment or employment, (b) any other dispute between a member of staff and the qualifying institution in respect of which proceedings could be brought before any court or tribunal, or (c) any dispute as to the application of the statutes or other internal laws of the institution in relation to a matter falling within paragraph (a) or (b). (2) In subsection (1) "qualifying institution" has the meaning given by section 11. (3) In determining whether a dispute falls within subsection (1)(b) it is to be assumed that the visitor does not have jurisdiction to determine the dispute. (4) Section 206 of the Education Reform Act 1988 (c. 40) (which is superseded by subsection (1)) shall cease to have effect."

Lord Triesman: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 55B I shall speak also to consequential Amendments Nos. 57A and 60. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, and the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, were both concerned about the continuing jurisdiction of a visitor in relation to staff complaints. We have always accepted that the current position is not ideal and noble Lords' arguments have confirmed our view. The amendment, therefore, addresses the concerns raised about the continuing role of the visitor in staff complaints.
	Section 206 of the Education Reform Act 1988 removed the visitor's jurisdiction in disputes relating to academic staff which concerned appointment or employment. There has been debate as to the extent of this exclusion and whether it covers disputes indirectly related to employment matters, such as whether an institution's internal rules have been followed in relation to a staff complaint.
	The amendment seeks to address noble Lords' concerns by placing beyond doubt the extent of the removal of the exclusive jurisdiction of the visitor. It provides for the widest possible exclusion in relation to appointment and employment related matters. The exclusion also covers the internal powers and discretions that derive from the internal laws where they relate to staff complaints.
	Whereas the 1988 Act relates to academic staff, we believe that all staff should be covered by the new amendment. The amendment also addresses the principled objection to the jurisdiction of the visitor: that where a visitor acts when access to the courts is limited. We believe that it is wrong to deny access to the courts and so the amendment excludes the visitor's jurisdiction from all staff disputes where there is a possible redress through any court or tribunal whether by an action for damages or judicial review in appropriate circumstance, for example, where a member of staff has a complaint about a matter that relates to their employment contract or where they have had an accident at work.
	In that context, the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, were concerned in Committee that the existing situation raises human rights issues. Our amendment removes any such concerns as there will not be any possibility of access to the courts being denied to a member of staff because of the visitor's exclusive jurisdiction.
	The amendment also puts the rights of staff in chartered and new universities on a more equal footing and addresses the inconsistencies between the exclusion of the visitor's jurisdiction over student and staff complaints. Of course, where a person who is a visitor is assigned a role in relation to student or staff complaints, he or she may continue to perform that role in a personal capacity, for example, by acting as an independent person considering an appeal as part of the institution's internal dismissal or disciplinary or grievance procedures. This would be on a non-visitorial basis and would not, therefore, restrict access to the courts.
	Once again, I thank noble Lords for raising these issues. The amendment, together with the Universities UK offer of discussions with the staff unions, to which we made reference in the first day on Report, moves us forward in addressing the anomalies in the present arrangements. I beg to move.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing forward the amendment which, as he says, follows the discussions we had on the extension of staff to the independent office of the adjudicator, and proposes different mechanisms. We welcome very much the fact that the Government have recognised that the visitor system falls foul of human rights legislation and that these proposals seek ways of ensuring compliance with that legislation.
	We also welcome very much the offer of assistance made by the DfES to facilitate discussions between UUK and the AUT to set up a new appeals mechanism of one sort or another. There is slight concern on the part of the union about the position in the interregnum. Once the Bill is passed there is no procedure in place until the AUT and UUK have some sort of new scheme set up. Therefore, it is important that the UUK and AUT set about agreeing a new robust scheme as quickly as possible.
	It is vital that a mechanism is also in place which ensures on behalf of Parliament and the public that the universities follow their own internal statutes—the rules by which they operate—and allows that to be remedied where an institution has failed to do so.
	There are two specific issues of clarification which I ask the Minister to respond to. First, what will be the commencement date for this section of the Bill? Secondly, what are the transitional arrangements for petitions already received and being dealt with by the visitor at that commencement date?

The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, the office of visitor dates from a time long before the kind of complex professional and personal disputes that are part of today's scene. The only body to which I am visitor is a group of nuns and clearly the regulations do not apply. But several of my episcopal colleagues are visitors to academic institutions. They will, I am sure, greet these proposals with some measure of relief and I hope they are accepted.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, I join in the thanks given to the Minister for bringing forward the amendment, which largely meets concerns. Also, perhaps I may thank the Minister and his officials who took quite a long time to explain to me how it would operate. I think that I now understand it and am very pleased that the Minister has brought forward the amendment.

Lord Triesman: My Lords, perhaps I may respond to the questions asked. The first was what would happen in the interregnum to staff cases that are currently before the visitor—to paraphrase the question the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, asked. We envisage that when these provisions are commenced many staff provisions already with a visitor will remain within the visitor's jurisdiction to be resolved.
	However, like the noble Baroness, I also hope that a robust scheme will be agreed as soon as possible for the new arrangements. That will be very important.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I ask the Minister one further point. In so far as the new scheme is agreed, is it proposed to incorporate that in legislation at some point, just as the student appeal scheme has been incorporated in legislation? We recognise that this particular opportunity has been lost, but is it envisaged that perhaps it should be incorporated at some point in a legislative framework?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, we want to see the outcome of the discussions between the institutions and the staff unions before committing to any future legislation. To make a commitment in advance of seeing those discussions and understanding the character of the agreement which might be struck would probably not be the best way of proceeding.
	The other question which I was asked was about when the Government will commence these provisions. We think it is best to ensure consistency. For that reason it would make sense to commence these provisions at a similar time to the jurisdiction of the visitor over the student complaints system being removed under Clause 19. Obviously, I cannot give a precise date. We will of course discuss the matter with Universities UK, the Association of University Teachers and with interested parties. As soon as I am in possession of any further information I will be most happy to write to the noble Baroness and make sure that the answer is also in the Library of the House.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 43 [Orders and regulations]:
	[Amendments Nos. 56 and 57 not moved.]
	Schedule 7 [Repeals]:

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 57A:
	Page 33, line 31, at end insert—
	
		
			  
			 "Education Reform Act 1988 (c. 40) Section 206. 
			  In section 207(1), paragraph (c) and the word "or" immediately preceding it." 
		
	
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 48 [Commencement]:
	[Amendment No. 58 not moved.]
	[Amendment No. 58A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 59:
	Page 22, line 41, at end insert—
	"section (Extension of period within which discrimination proceedings must be brought);"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	In the Title:

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 60:
	Line 5, at end insert "to limit the jurisdiction of visitors of institutions providing higher education;"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Title, as amended, agreed to.
	House adjourned at ten o'clock.